2016) 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd.

253 CTR 227High Court2012#15515 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 28 Section 115JB Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32 Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ca revenue expenditure capital expenditure transfer pricing adjustment section 37(1)dispute resolution panel section 37 final assessment order section 144c section 115jb non-resident draft assessment order

Judgments citing 2016) 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd.

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…amount of lease rentals paid during the year, was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the High I Court. (iii) The decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd 253 CTR 227, wherein it was held that a lease agreement providing lessee a right to purchase an asset is not Hire Purchase Agreement until such right is exercised by the lessee. 5.8 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial precedents, we hold that disallowance of Rs.9,29,592/- is not justified on facts and circumstances of the case. It is ordered…

MAHANAGAR GAS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

ITA 505/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.P. JayramanFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…nthetics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2011) 333 ITR 18 (Delhi) (ii) Binani Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2016) 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. reported in (2012) 253 CTR 227 (Jharkhand) (iv) Asia Power Projects P Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 370 ITR 257 (Karnataka), and (v) M/s.Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in T.C.(A) No.583 of 2007 dated 05.01.2016, which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Prasad Productions in T.C. (A)…

MAHANAGAR GAS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC

ITA 1694/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.P. JayramanFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

SIDDHAYU AAURVEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// THE ACIT CIRCLE 34(3) (2) , DELHI

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…such account is revenue in nature and placed reliance on the following decisions in this regard: • Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd V. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) • CIT v Graphite India Limited [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal HC) • CIT v Tata Robins Fraser Ltd [2012] 253 CTR 227 (Jharkhand HC) • Idea Cellular Ltd v Addl. CIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bom HC) • Binani Cement Ltd v. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Cal HC) 6.2.14 Thus, based on the above arguments, the Assessee has submitted that the assessee company has advanced loan to subsidiary for carrying out its trading operations indirectly by serving off its debt and if su…

RIO TINTO INDIA PVT. LTD. ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

…e amount of lease rentals paid during the year, was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the High Court. (iii) The decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd 253 CTR 227, wherein it was held that a lease agreement providing lessee a right to purchase an asset is not Hire Purchase Agreement until such right is exercised by the lessee. 5.8 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial precedents, we hold that disallowance of Rs.9,29,592/- is not justified on facts and circumstances of the case. It is ordered…

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…(i) Priya Village Road shows Ltd. (185 Taxman 44) (Del HC) (ii) Modi Industrial (200 ITR 341) (Del HC) (iii) CIT Vs. Woodcraft Products Ltd. (1993) 217 ITR 862 (Cal HC) (iv) Assam Asbestos Ltd. (132 Taxman 808) (HC) (v) CIT Vs. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. (2012) 253 CTR 227 (Jharkhand HC) (vi) Reliance Footprint Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2014) 29 ITR 82 (Mum-Trib) (vii) Dotex International Limited Vs. ACIT (2008) ITA. No.3214/Mum/2008 (Mum-Trib) (viii) Enpro India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2000) 113 Taxman 132 (Del-Trib) (ix) Gujarat Green Revolution Co. Ltd. V ACIT (2013) 26 ITR 567 (x) Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. 3 ITR 754 (m…