252)(Bom) (c) CIT v. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd.

352 ITR 71Reported decision#17725 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Also reported as

53 Taxmann.com 171

Judgments citing 252)(Bom) (c) CIT v. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd.

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…licable to this payment. Ld.Counsel relied on following decisions in this regard:- (a) ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers Ltd (ITA No.274/Mum/2013) (b) CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2017)(85 taxmann.com 252)(Bom) (c) CIT vs. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd (2013)(352 ITR 71)(Bom) (d) CIT vs. Vikas Chemicals (2015)(53 taxmann.com 171)(Delhi) 7.8.3. He submitted that Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal examined identical issue in the case of NMDC Ltd (supra) and the deductions made by MC have been allowed as business expenditure. 7.9. Ld.CIT.DR supported orders passed by authorities below. According to Ld.CIT DR, Hon’ble Suprem…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…licable to this payment. Ld.Counsel relied on following decisions in this regard:- (a) ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers Ltd (ITA No.274/Mum/2013) (b) CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2017)(85 taxmann.com 252)(Bom) (c) CIT vs. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd (2013)(352 ITR 71)(Bom) (d) CIT vs. Vikas Chemicals (2015)(53 taxmann.com 171)(Delhi) 7.8.3. He submitted that Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal examined identical issue in the case of NMDC Ltd (supra) and the deductions made by MC have been allowed as business expenditure. 7.9. Ld.CIT.DR supported orders passed by authorities below. According to Ld.CIT DR, Hon’ble Suprem…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…licable to this payment. Ld.Counsel relied on following decisions in this regard:- (a) ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers Ltd (ITA No.274/Mum/2013) (b) CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2017)(85 taxmann.com 252)(Bom) (c) CIT vs. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd (2013)(352 ITR 71)(Bom) (d) CIT vs. Vikas Chemicals (2015)(53 taxmann.com 171)(Delhi) 7.8.3. He submitted that Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal examined identical issue in the case of NMDC Ltd (supra) and the deductions made by MC have been allowed as business expenditure. 7.9. Ld.CIT.DR supported orders passed by authorities below. According to Ld.CIT DR, Hon’ble Suprem…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…licable to this payment. Ld.Counsel relied on following decisions in this regard:- (a) ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers Ltd (ITA No.274/Mum/2013) (b) CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2017)(85 taxmann.com 252)(Bom) (c) CIT vs. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd (2013)(352 ITR 71)(Bom) (d) CIT vs. Vikas Chemicals (2015)(53 taxmann.com 171)(Delhi) 7.8.3. He submitted that Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal examined identical issue in the case of NMDC Ltd (supra) and the deductions made by MC have been allowed as business expenditure. 7.9. Ld.CIT.DR supported orders passed by authorities below. According to Ld.CIT DR, Hon’ble Supre…

Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5986/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…business and the same was encashed by invoking the bank guarantee for not fulfilling the terms of the contract and placing reliance on the decision in the case of CIT v. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. [37 taxmann.com 57 (Guj)], CIT v. Ragalia Apparels P. Ltd. [352 ITR 71] and Asia Power Project P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [370 ITR 257]. It is submitted that encashment of bank guarantee is business expenditure. 59. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 60. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. It is not in dispute that MIAL had…

252)(Bom) (c) CIT v. Regalia Apparels (P) Ltd. (352 ITR 71) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax