245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT v. WEP Perferals Ltd.

362 ITR 515High Court2014#20614 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT v. WEP Perferals Ltd.

Sri Karpagavinayagar Education and Charitable Trust, Palani vs. Income Tax Officer, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 263/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.263/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Charitable Trust, 1, Thalayuthu, Exemptions Ward, Palani 624 618. Madurai. [Pan: Aagts7098L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate & Shri B.K. Gopilal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Denying Exemption

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)

…y accounted for in the accounts of our trust. The assessee also cited the following case laws in its support, i) CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. 1997 226 ITR 625 (SC) ii) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del) iii) CIT v. Jawahar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj)” 7. On an examination of the above, it is clear that the car was purchased in the name of the managing trustee for the simple reason that it gave relief by way of lower road/life tax and insurance charges, by contending that road/life tax and insurance charges payable for a new car 6 I.T.A. No.263/Chny/24 registered as a commercial vehic…

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…625 (SC) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT vs WEP Perferals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawhar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.) supports the case of the assessee. 10 Sanjay G. Vadodaria 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), Prkash Leasing Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179 (Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 362 (Del.), CIT vs Glenmark Phar…

Premeshwar Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6852/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Permeshwar Creations Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcp3517F

Section 32

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘सी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Permeshwar Creations DCIT-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. MIDC Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AADCP3517F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Anil Thakrar राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…625 (SC) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT vs WEP Perferals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawhar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.) supports the case of the assessee. 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), Prkash Leasing Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179 (Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 362 (Del.), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2013)…