260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT v. Fag Bearing India Ltd.

387 ITR 33High Court2015#7607 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT v. Fag Bearing India Ltd.

M/S CALAMA SALES P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL 2(1), INDORE

In the result, these appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 266/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No. 265/Ind/2021 - Assessment-Year: 2014-15 M/s Calama Sales (P) Ltd. ITO, 1(1)(3), बनाम Calama House, Ahmedabad Near Malwa College, /Vs. Dewas Bypass Road, Indore Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue 266/Ind/2021 - Assessment-Year: 2015-16 M/s Calama Sales (P) Ltd. DCIT, Circle-2(1) बनाम Calama House, Indore Near Malwa College, /Vs. Dewas Bypass Road, Indore Appellant / Assessee Respondent…

M/S CALAMA SALES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1) (3) , AHMEDABAD

In the result, these appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No. 265/Ind/2021 - Assessment-Year: 2014-15 M/s Calama Sales (P) Ltd. ITO, 1(1)(3), बनाम Calama House, Ahmedabad Near Malwa College, /Vs. Dewas Bypass Road, Indore Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue 266/Ind/2021 - Assessment-Year: 2015-16 M/s Calama Sales (P) Ltd. DCIT, Circle-2(1) बनाम Calama House, Indore Near Malwa College, /Vs. Dewas Bypass Road, Indore Appellant / Assessee Respondent…

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

ITA 670/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…High Court in case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Limited and also the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of M/s Rajasthan land Holding Ltd. dated 25.09.2019 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, further no exempt has been earned during the year, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer directed to be deleted. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findi…

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…High Court in case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Limited and also the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of M/s Rajasthan land Holding Ltd. dated 25.09.2019 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, further no exempt has been earned during the year, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer directed to be deleted. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findi…

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…High Court in case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Limited and also the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of M/s Rajasthan land Holding Ltd. dated 25.09.2019 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 402 ITR 640. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, further no exempt has been earned during the year, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer directed to be deleted. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the findi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submitted in case law compilation, are mainly in respect of provision for warranty. In those cases, the Courts have observed that there has to be scientific method/historical trend to substantiate the claim for provision on account of warranty. In the instant case, assessee has claimed deduction…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1),, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submitted in case law compilation, are mainly in respect of provision for warranty. In those cases, the Courts have observed that there has to be scientific method/historical trend to substantiate the claim for provision on account of warranty. In the instant case, assessee has claimed deduction…

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1) vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submitted in case law compilation, are mainly in respect of provision for warranty. In those cases, the Courts have observed that there has to be scientific method/historical trend to substantiate the claim for provision on account of warranty. In the instant case, assessee has claimed deduction…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3804/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submitted in case law compilation, are mainly in respect of provision for warranty. In those cases, the Courts have observed that there has to be scientific method/historical trend to substantiate the claim for provision on account of warranty. In the instant case, assessee has claimed deduction…

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-11,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submitted in case law compilation, are mainly in respect of provision for warranty. In those cases, the Courts have observed that there has to be scientific method/historical trend to substantiate the claim for provision on account of warranty. In the instant case, assessee has claimed deduction…

THE DY CIT, C-2, INDORE vs. M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD. , INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 834/IND/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Acit (Central)-Ii, M/S Keti Sangam Indore Vs. Infrastructure Ltd, 15/31 Vidhyyadeep, Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aadck0129Q Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulasiyan & Amitesh Jain, Cas Date Of Hearing 09.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…Keti Sangam Infrastructure Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 ACIT (Central)-II, M/s Keti Sangam Indore Vs. Infrastructure Ltd, 15/31 Vidhyyadeep, Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN AADCK0129Q Revenue by Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Ajay Tulasiyan & Amitesh Jain, CAs Date of Hearing 09.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.05.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 vs. SHRI BRAHAM DEV GUPTA

The appeals are allowed

ITA/907/2017HC Delhi20 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 263

…of credits from entries such as Mangal traders and Yogmaya Traders, learned counsel submitted that the bank account of Sh. Jaidev Gupta was duly noticed. As far as the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was concerned, the decision in CIT v. Aman Khera 387 ITR 33 squarely applied. 9. It was argued that the invocation of powers under Section 263 had to be for cogent reasons and on valid grounds. Given that the AO had conducted a thorough investigation into all the circumstances, the fact that ITA 907/2017 & ITA 1162/2017 Page 8 of 13 CIT(A)’s disagreement was based on surmises rather than on…

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COX & KINGS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 5583/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 14A

…ed, the investments from which assessee has not earned any exempt income should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A. In this regard the learned A.R. relied upon the following decisions: - (i) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (2014) 272 ITR 265 (P&H) (iii) Cox & Kings Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 1354 & 7770/Mum/2014 dated 4.11.2015 4. The learned D.R. relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The specific contention of the learned A.R. is, in t…

COX AND KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 5440/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manjunathad C I T – 1(1)(1) M/S. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. Room No. 579, 5Th Floor Tuner Morrison Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 16, Bank Street Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Co No. 117/Mum/2017 (In Ita No. 5583/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 14A

…ed, the investments from which assessee has not earned any exempt income should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A. In this regard the learned A.R. relied upon the following decisions: - (i) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 387 ITR 33 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (2014) 272 ITR 265 (P&H) (iii) Cox & Kings Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 1354 & 7770/Mum/2014 dated 4.11.2015 4. The learned D.R. relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The specific contention of the learned A.R. is, in t…

SH. BRAHAM DEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e assessee has categorically submitted before the ld. CIT that the assessee has earned no exempt income on investment during the year under assessment and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT – 387 ITR 33 (Del.), ld. CIT instead of examining the issue in the light of the settled principle of law, directed the AO to examine the case law and decide accordingly and this fact shows the casual approach adopted by the CIT. So again, in these circumstances, we are unable to hold that no enquiry has been conducted by the AO to complete the assessment u/s…