356 ITR 0012 (followed) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samara India P. Ltd.

362 ITR 647High Court2014#17829 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 356 ITR 0012 (followed) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samara India P. Ltd.

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. DLF PROJECTS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, ITA Nos.4960/Del/2015 and 2595/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and ITA

ITA 5135/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dlf Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Dlf Projects Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DLF Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.CIT, 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. DLF Projects Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

DLF PROJECTS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, ITA Nos.4960/Del/2015 and 2595/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and ITA

ITA 4960/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dlf Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Dlf Projects Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DLF Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.CIT, 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. DLF Projects Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8127/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…of the opinion that ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowances made by the A.O. in this regard. 18. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” Here,we would also like to refer to the writ petition of Madhav Marbles (362 ITR 647 ) wherein the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held as under: “15. Now, coming to the merits of the allowability of deduction as bad advances/bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, the position of law seems to 9164/Mum/2010,(2006-07)-Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.+5appls have been settled by the ape…

AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 7098/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…of the opinion that ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowances made by the A.O. in this regard. 18. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” Here,we would also like to refer to the writ petition of Madhav Marbles (362 ITR 647 ) wherein the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held as under: “15. Now, coming to the merits of the allowability of deduction as bad advances/bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, the position of law seems to 9164/Mum/2010,(2006-07)-Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.+5appls have been settled by the ape…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GALILEO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate
Section 14A

…decisions relied by the ld. Counsel for the assessee : (i). TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) (ii). Minda HUF Ltd. vs. JCIT 285 ITR(AT) 88 (Del. Tri.) (iii). CIT vs. Modi Telecommunication Ltd. 325 ITR 291 (Del.) (iv). Madhav Marbles and Granites vs. ITAT, 362 ITR 647 (Raj.) 21 ITA No.88/Del./2014 20. In view of these decisions, and in the totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld.CIT(A) on this count. Accordingly, this ground of appeal also deserves to fail. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…

356 ITR 0012 (followed) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samara India P. Ltd. (362 ITR 647) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax