358 ITR 295 (SC) 2) Radhaswoami Satsang v. CIT

283 ITR 273Supreme Court of India2006#24344 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Judgments citing 358 ITR 295 (SC) 2) Radhaswoami Satsang v. CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR &

Section 154Section 250Section 32

…-15 and 2015-16, depreciation could not have been disallowed in the impugned year. Reference was made to the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Excel Industries, 358 ITR 295 (SC); b. Radhaswoami Satsang Vs. CIT, 193 ITR 0321 (SC); c. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd – 283 ITR 273 (SC) (iii) That, depreciation on goodwill arising consequent to the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat was allowable in view of the settled legal position. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd., (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC) b. PCIT Vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd., (2017) 87 taxmann…

SHREE MALLIKARJUN TRAD INVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…in the year in question in view of principles of consistency. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- 1) CIT vs. Excel Industries – 358 ITR 295 (SC) 2) Radhaswoami Satsang vs. CIT – 193 ITR 0321 (SC) 3) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. UOI – (2006) 283 ITR 273 (SC) 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the addition has been merely on the basis of general observation being as to Dhenu Buildcon Private Limited being a penny stock without bringing any cogent material on record with respect to assessee’s case to demonstrate any nexus or live link between assessee and the so-called entry operators. The Ld.…

DCIT-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KUMAR PROPERTIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit 1(2)(1), M/S Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakarbhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, Hazarimalsomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabck8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : &

For Appellant: ShriDrop Singh MeenaFor Respondent: ShriRajanVora/Shri

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…the method of revenue recognition i.e. project completion method regularly followed by the Assessee: • RadhasoamiSatsang vs. CIT (1992)(193 ITR 321)(SC) • CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit(2011) 336 ITR 0287 (Bom) • Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Union of India (2006)(283 ITR 273)(SC) • Pr. CIT vs Quest Investment Advisors (P) Ltd (ITA No 280 of 2016 dated 28 June 2018) (Bom HC) (Copy enclosed at page no 194 to 200 of the Paper book) 40. In view of the above cited decision, the Assessee submits that it has been consistently following the project completion method of accounting for recognizing the revenue and in the absenc…