1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom. HC)

398 ITR 568Supreme Court of India2017#17834 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JASection 115JBSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 28Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 80esection 75section 32(2)convertible foreign exchangesection 80absection 32asection 80msection 80hsection 80hhcsection 80hhdomestic companysection 80c

Judgments citing 1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom. HC)

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…determining the quantum of deduction u/s 80-IA. 6.2 Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered against the assessee in the following decisions: 1. ITA No. 184/A/1998, in assessee's own case for A.Y 1994-95. 2. Plastibends India Ltd., Vs. ACIT (398 ITR 568) (SC). 6.3 The coordinate Bench while deciding the issue against the assessee for A.Y 1994-95 has observed as under: After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Plastiblends India Limited (supra). Respectfully following the same, we hold that f…

Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisioner Incomer Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

…the Act would mean gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act.” 112. Further contention of the assessee Counsel is that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd., 398 ITR 568 is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- “Firstly the said judgement deals with deduction under section 80IA which falls under Chapter VI-A and is therefore covered by provisions of section 80AB (i.e. the deeming fiction to provide deduction only from income as included in the gross total income of the assess…

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

…the Act would mean gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act. 112. Further contention of the assessee Counsel is that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd., 398 ITR 568 is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- “Firstly the said judgement deals with deduction under section 80IA which falls under Chapter VI-A and is therefore covered by provisions of section 80AB (i.e. the deeming fiction to provide deduction only from income as included in the gross total income of the assess…

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

…as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act.” Page 15 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore 112. Further contention of the assessee Counsel is that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd., 398 ITR 568 is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- “Firstly the said judgement deals with deduction under section 80IA which falls under Chapter VI-A and is therefore covered by provisions of section 80AB (i.e. the deeming fiction to provide deduction only from income as included in the gross total income of the assess…

Shri Baboo Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

ITA 1370/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 154Section 32Section 44A

…s account. It was submitted that as per explanation 5 to Section 32, the AO should have allowed remaining depreciation on shop even if not claimed by the assessee and in support, reliance was placed on the decision of Platiblends India Ltd. vs. Add.CIT (2017) 398 ITR 568(SC). 10. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that in the computation of income filed by the assessee at its Paper book page 17, it has shown tools and plants under the head “ Fixed Assets” on which depreciation of Rs. 11,250/- has been claimed and duly allowed by the Assessing Officer. Further, our reference was also drawn to the audit report where…

1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom. HC) (398 ITR 568) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax