166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT

54 SOT 54Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#3289 most cited

What is 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT authority for?

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is applicable only when the Assessing Officer records a finding that he is not satisfied with the assessee's method of disallowing expenditure incurred in relation to income not chargeable to tax.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT · 166 ITD 440 · Section 14A · Rule 8D · Assessing Officer's satisfaction · disallowance of expenditure · income not chargeable to tax

Judgments citing 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. DCIT -vs.- Allahabad Bank [ITA No. 1282 of 2012 dtd 01-06-2016 (Koi)] ACIT-vs.- Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2016] 157ITD 667 (Koi) ACIT-vs.- SIL Investment Ltd. [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi) Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT[2012] 54 SOT356 (Delhi) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punj& Har) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. -vs.- Addl. CIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi - Trib.) 3.6 As per Section 14A(2), provision of Rule 8D comes in to play only when the AO records a finding that he is not satisfied with…

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. DCIT -vs.- Allahabad Bank [ITA No. 1282 of 2012 dtd 01-06-2016 (Koi)] ACIT-vs.- Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2016] 157ITD 667 (Koi) ACIT-vs.- SIL Investment Ltd. [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi) Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT[2012] 54 SOT356 (Delhi) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punj& Har) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. -vs.- Addl. CIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi - Trib.) 3.6 As per Section 14A(2), provision of Rule 8D comes in to play only when the AO records a finding that he is not satisfied with…

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 448/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 32

…dditional depreciation, the assessee has claimed the balance additional depreciation of 10% during the current year. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- (i) DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. 13 ITR (T) 340 (Delhi) (ii)ACIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd. (2012) 54 SOT 54 (Delhi) (iii)MITC Rolling Mills P Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No. 2789/MUM/2012 3. The explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO. According to him, before amendment from 1st April, 2016 the claim of the assessee on additional depreciation on plant and machinery purchased in AY 2014-15 of Rs. 1,46,75,508/- is not allowable at all as per ex…

DCIT-9(3((2), MUMBAI vs. GARWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4146/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bledcit– 9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garware Industries Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor 50-A, Garware House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Swami Nityanand Marg Mumbai – 400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Aaacy5779P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri T.S. Khalsa Department By Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 32(1)(iia)

…following the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 2789/Mum/2012 and the Delhi Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Cosmo Films Ltd., [139 ITD 628] and 3 M/s. Garware Industries Ltd., ACIT v. Sil investment Ltd., [54 SOT 54]. Against this order the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel Shri Vijay Mehta appearing for the assessee submitted that identical issue has come up before the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT v. M/s. TCPL Packaging Ltd., in ITA.No. 5403 & 5402/Mum/2016 dated 23.02.2018 and the Tribunal considering the dec…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…- DCIT vs Cosmos Films Ltd (139 ITD 628) (ITAT Delhi) - Century Enka Ltd Vs DCIT (154 ITD 426) (ITAT Kolkata) - Universal Cables Ltd Vs DCIT (68 SOT 307) (ITAT Kolkata) - Birla Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT (69 SOT 217) (ITAT Kolkata) - ACIT Vs SIL Investment Ltd (54 SOT 54) (ITAT Chennai) - Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs DCIT (67 taxmann.com 48) (ITAT Chennai) Apart from the above the appellant also referred to the second proviso to Sec 32(1) which also laid down the above proposition and clarified it beyond doubt. 3. Upon giving due consideration to the submissions made by the appellant and having regard to the facts availabl…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…- DCIT vs Cosmos Films Ltd (139 ITD 628) (ITAT Delhi) - Century Enka Ltd Vs DCIT (154 ITD 426) (ITAT Kolkata) - Universal Cables Ltd Vs DCIT (68 SOT 307) (ITAT Kolkata) - Birla Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT (69 SOT 217) (ITAT Kolkata) - ACIT Vs SIL Investment Ltd (54 SOT 54) (ITAT Chennai) - Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs DCIT (67 taxmann.com 48) (ITAT Chennai) Apart from the above the appellant also referred to the second proviso to Sec 32(1) which also laid down the above proposition and clarified it beyond doubt. 3. Upon giving due consideration to the submissions made by the appellant and having regard to the facts availabl…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…- DCIT vs Cosmos Films Ltd (139 ITD 628) (ITAT Delhi) - Century Enka Ltd Vs DCIT (154 ITD 426) (ITAT Kolkata) - Universal Cables Ltd Vs DCIT (68 SOT 307) (ITAT Kolkata) - Birla Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT (69 SOT 217) (ITAT Kolkata) - ACIT Vs SIL Investment Ltd (54 SOT 54) (ITAT Chennai) - Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs DCIT (67 taxmann.com 48) (ITAT Chennai) Apart from the above the appellant also referred to the second proviso to Sec 32(1) which also laid down the above proposition and clarified it beyond doubt. 3. Upon giving due consideration to the submissions made by the appellant and having regard to the facts availabl…

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5390/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…that as such, the disallowance requires deletion. Reference has been made to these decisions:  K. Raheja Corporation P. Limited  Minda Investment Ltd. 138 TTJ 240 (Delhi) (2011)  Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (Delhi) (2011)  SIL Investment Ltd. 54 SOT 54 (Delhi) (2012) 31. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that last but not the least, without prejudice, the disallowance ought to be, if at all, sustained to the expenditure actually incurred, which is an amount of Rs.7,91,181/- paid as salary to the treasury Manager. For this, reliance has been placed on Gillette Group India (P.) Ltd.…

ACIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5295/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi
Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

…that as such, the disallowance requires deletion. Reference has been made to these decisions:  K. Raheja Corporation P. Limited  Minda Investment Ltd. 138 TTJ 240 (Delhi) (2011)  Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (Delhi) (2011)  SIL Investment Ltd. 54 SOT 54 (Delhi) (2012) 31. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that last but not the least, without prejudice, the disallowance ought to be, if at all, sustained to the expenditure actually incurred, which is an amount of Rs.7,91,181/- paid as salary to the treasury Manager. For this, reliance has been placed on Gillette Group India (P.) Ltd.…

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…ittal India (P.) Ltd. (66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) 5. CIT vs. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. (79 taxmann.com 411(Madras) 6. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) 7. DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (139 ITD 628) (Del.) 8. ACIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (54 SOT 54 (Delhi) I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion this issue was considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) and Another vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) (380 ITR 428) wherein it was held as under: “Additional depreciation allowable under section 32(1)(iia) o…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…ittal India (P.) Ltd. (66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) 5. CIT vs. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. (79 taxmann.com 411(Madras) 6. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) 7. DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (139 ITD 628) (Del.) 8. ACIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (54 SOT 54 (Delhi) I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion this issue was considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) and Another vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) (380 ITR 428) wherein it was held as under: “Additional depreciation allowable under section 32(1)(iia) o…

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…come. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds were utilized. No fresh investments were made during the years…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…come. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds were utilized. No fresh investments were made during the years…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…come. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds were utilized. No fresh investments were made during the years…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…come. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds were utilized. No fresh investments were made during the years…

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…come. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds were utilized. No fresh investments were made during the years…

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…come. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate benches in Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT [2017] 166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha vs. ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum) (URO) and ACIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi-Trib) to further support the said averment. He further submitted that invocation of section 14A was in this case was not called for as investments which had yielded exempt income during the years under consideration, were made from its own funds and no part of the borrowed funds were utilized. No fresh investments were made during the years…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7030/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3663/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7028/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010.-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7029/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7030/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Asst. Commissioner of M/s Modis…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7029/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3663/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7028/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010.-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7029/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7030/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Asst. Commissioner of M/s Modis…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7028/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3663/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7028/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010.-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7029/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7030/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Asst. Commissioner of M/s Modis…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

166 ITD 440 (Mum-Trib), Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. ACIT (54 SOT 54) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax