284 (Mumbai-Trib.) v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synergy Credit Corpn. Ltd.

9 SOT 75Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#21575 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 284 (Mumbai-Trib.) v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synergy Credit Corpn. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No. 2286/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 PAN : AAACA4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 1…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80

…tive covenant was neither permanent nor ephemeral. Hence, the advantage was not of an enduring nature.” 6.1 In addition to the above we also found that similar grounds were also considered in the following case “JCIT Vs. Synergy Credit Corporation Ltd.”(2006) 9 SOT 75 (Mum) and in the case of “ACIT Vs. Clariant Chemicals (I)Ltd.(ITA No.7428/Mum/2011). After considering afore mentioned judgments we found that the similar points have already been considered by Hon’ble High Court as well as co- ordinate bench of ITAT. 6.2 In view of the afore mentioned decision of Hon’ble ITAT in favour of assessee, while adhere to…

The DCIT 3(1) vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd

ITA 2654/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

…covenant was neither permanent nor ephemeral. Hence, the advantage was not of an enduring nature.” 6.1 In addition to the above we also found that similar grounds were also considered in the following case “JCIT Vs. Synergy Credit Corporation Ltd.” (2006) 9 SOT 75 (Mum) and in the case of “ACIT Vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd. (ITA No.7428/Mum/2011). After considering afore mentioned judgements we found that the similar points have already been considered by Hon’ble High Court as well as co-ordinate bench of ITAT. 6.2 In view of the afore mentioned decision of Hon’ble ITAT in favour of assessee, while adhe…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG3(1)

ITA 2524/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

…covenant was neither permanent nor ephemeral. Hence, the advantage was not of an enduring nature.” 6.1 In addition to the above we also found that similar grounds were also considered in the following case “JCIT Vs. Synergy Credit Corporation Ltd.” (2006) 9 SOT 75 (Mum) and in the case of “ACIT Vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd. (ITA No.7428/Mum/2011). After considering afore mentioned judgements we found that the similar points have already been considered by Hon’ble High Court as well as co-ordinate bench of ITAT. 6.2 In view of the afore mentioned decision of Hon’ble ITAT in favour of assessee, while adhe…