168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT

26 SOT 574Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#10456 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(17)section 5(c)section 43d section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 194a(1)section 59 section 194a(3)section 43a

Judgments citing 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

Section 144Section 14A

…er Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systenis Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the ca…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

Section 144Section 14A

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

Section 144Section 14A

…er Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574\n(Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni\nComputer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble\nBombay Iligh Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra)\n5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by\ninviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the cas…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi

Section 144Section 14A

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…508 (Karnataka) iv. DCIT versus Patni computer systems limited (114 ITD 159 (Pune) v. Apollo hospitals Enterprises Ltd (53 SOT 103) (Chennai) vi. DCIT versus Turquoise Investment and Finance Limited (2008) ( 300 ITR 1) (SC) vii. Pooja Bhatt versus DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MU M) viii. DCIT versus Mideast India Ltd (2009) 28 SOT395 (Delhi) ix. DCIT versus SRO Ltd (2011) (47 SOT139) (MU M) x. Bank of India versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (2012) (27 taxmann.com 335) MU M) b) It was contested before him that the relevant tax treaty provided that such business income ‘may be taxed’ in a particular state in res…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…(Karnataka) iv. DCIT versus Patni computer systems limited (114 ITD 159 (Pune) v. Apollo hospitals Enterprises Ltd (53 SOT 103) (Chennai) vi. DCIT versus Turquoise Investment and Finance Limited (2008) ( 300 ITR 1) (SC) vii. Pooja Bhatt versus DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MU M) viii. DCIT versus Mideast India Ltd (2009) 28 SOT395 (Delhi) ix. DCIT versus SRO Ltd (2011) (47 SOT139) (MU M) x. Bank of India versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (2012) (27 taxmann.com 335) MU M) b) It was contested before him that the relevant tax treaty provided that such business income ‘may be taxed’ in a particular state…

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

…uter Systems Ltd . [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103 (Chennai)], Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168 Taxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574 (Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra) 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of B…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…puter Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103 (Chennai)], Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168 Taxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. CIT [2008] 26 SOT 574 (Mum.), Dy. CIT v. Mideast India Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 395 (Del.), CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 3/215 Taxman 108 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Apollo Enterprises Ltd. v. (supra) 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has more armoury in store. He begins by inviting our attention to a coordinate bench decision in the case of B…

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6273/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. State Bank Of India Tax Financial Reporting & Circle-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Mumbai State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs8577K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…ras High Court) • CTT V. R.M. Muthiah (202 ITR 508) (Karnataka High Court) • DCITv. Paini Computer Systems Limited (2007) (114 ITD 159) (Pune Tribunal) • DOT v. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2008) (300IR 1) (Supreme Court) • Pooja Bhatt v. DOT (2008) (26 SOT 574) (Mum) • DOT v. Mideast India Ltd. (2009) (28 SOT 395) (Del) • DOT v. Essar Oil Limited (2011) (47 SOT 139) (Mum) • CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Limited (ITA No. 1148 of 2012) (Bombay 6 State Bank of India High Court). 5.1. Apart from the above, the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bank of India vs…

TECNIMONT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , RG- 13 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 155/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar VP and Amarjit Singh JM] Assessment year: 2014-15 Technimont Pvt Ltd ……………….............Appellant Technimont House, Chinchpokli Bunder, 504, Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400 064 [PAN: AAACI2628B] Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai ………….……......Respondent Appearances by M P Lohia, along-with Nikhil Tiwari for the appellant Sanjay Singh for the respondent Dates of hearing of the appeal : January 29, 2020 Date of pronouncing this order : F…