What is 4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala authority for?

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the department's SLP upholds the Delhi High Court's decision that additional depreciation can be claimed on plant and machinery acquired on or after April 1, 2005, provided conditions in Section 32(1)(iia) are met. This decision is relevant for the second and subsequent years of claim.

How many judgments cite 4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite 4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala (311 ITR 405), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 35(2AB), Section 43A, Section 143(3), Section 14A.

4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala (311 ITR 405)

OCL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4068/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &

Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

…IT -vS.-Relaxo Footwears Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR231 (Del) [SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP Civil (Appeal) No. 12361/2007 dated 03-01-2008. Similar view taken in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. - vs.- CIT (2009) 311 ITR 405 (Del) [SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP Civil (Appeal) No. 9818/2008 dated 28-07- 2008]. 3.0. Claim of additional depreciation in second & subsequent years [Rs. 18,29,68,743/-] 3.1. For the previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depre…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &

Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

…IT -vS.-Relaxo Footwears Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR231 (Del) [SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP Civil (Appeal) No. 12361/2007 dated 03-01-2008. Similar view taken in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. - vs.- CIT (2009) 311 ITR 405 (Del) [SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP Civil (Appeal) No. 9818/2008 dated 28-07- 2008]. 3.0. Claim of additional depreciation in second & subsequent years [Rs. 18,29,68,743/-] 3.1. For the previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depre…

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…ative expenditure. However, in the return of income it is claimed as revenue expenditure placing reliance on the following decisions: - 4 Apollo Tyres Ltd. - Bell Ceramics Ltd. v. DCIT 2016 – TIOL-1688-HC-AHM- IT (Gujarat) - Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 311 ITR 405 (Del) - CIT VS. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3) : 200 ITR 341 (Del) - CIT v. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. 181 Taxman 5 (Del) - Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 98 ITR 20 - Kashiram Ramgopal v. CIT 36 Taxman 305 However, the AO was of the opinion that that this pre- operative expenditure should go to form part of cost of pla…

IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3109/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, 32/7, Samalka, Nh 8, Range – 04, New Delhi – 110 037. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaci9385B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Dated 13.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Disallowance Of ‘Project Pending Capitalization Written Off’ Expenses, Amounting To Rs.7,71,40,000/- & Treating These Expenses To Be Of Capital Nature. 2. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.5,40,62,940/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Revised Ground). 3. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.9,61,305/- On Account Of Claim Of Roc Fee Under Section 35D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 .”

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT, 32/7, Samalka, NH 8, Range – 04, New Delhi – 110 037. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACI9385B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date of Order : 04.06.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-35, New Delhi dated 13.02.2018 for the assessment yea…

BHARATKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1926/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

…Rajendraprasad Dave vs. ACIT was an element of interlacing before new venture and existing venture, and consequently, expenses had to be treated as revenue expenditure. The Delhi High Court held that in view of judgment in Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 405/[2008] 166 Taxman 115 (Delhi), pre-capitalisation expenses would be treated as revenue expenditure. In the case of Euro India Ltd.[2014] 45 taxmann.com 173 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that if expenditure is incurred on obtaining feasibility report for expansion of existing business where there is unity of control and common funds, then suc…

BHARATKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1925/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

…Rajendraprasad Dave vs. ACIT was an element of interlacing before new venture and existing venture, and consequently, expenses had to be treated as revenue expenditure. The Delhi High Court held that in view of judgment in Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 405/[2008] 166 Taxman 115 (Delhi), pre-capitalisation expenses would be treated as revenue expenditure. In the case of Euro India Ltd.[2014] 45 taxmann.com 173 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that if expenditure is incurred on obtaining feasibility report for expansion of existing business where there is unity of control and common funds, then suc…

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 761/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Research, Government of India. We have already held in para-9 that the assessee’s business had already commenced long back and it was in the process of new product line only. 11. The case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. V/s CIT (311 ITR 405) would support the case of the assessee wherein it was held that the nature of new business is not a decisive test for determining whether or not there is an expansion of an existing business. The nature of the business could be as distinct as a jewellery business and a business of cinematographic films; it could be as different as manufacture of…

M/S. ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 638/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Research, Government of India. We have already held in para-9 that the assessee’s business had already commenced long back and it was in the process of new product line only. 11. The case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. V/s CIT (311 ITR 405) would support the case of the assessee wherein it was held that the nature of new business is not a decisive test for determining whether or not there is an expansion of an existing business. The nature of the business could be as distinct as a jewellery business and a business of cinematographic films; it could be as different as manufacture of…

ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3216/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Research, Government of India. We have already held in para-9 that the assessee’s business had already commenced long back and it was in the process of new product line only. 11. The case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. V/s CIT (311 ITR 405) would support the case of the assessee wherein it was held that the nature of new business is not a decisive test for determining whether or not there is an expansion of an existing business. The nature of the business could be as distinct as a jewellery business and a business of cinematographic films; it could be as different as manufacture of…

ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 82/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35(3)

…ions of Sec. 35(3) and submitted the revenue has no right to disallow the expenditure without making a reference to the approving authority. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd vs CIT ( 311 ITR 405). 3. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the expenditure was incurred before the commencement of a new line of business and therefore, the expenses has rightly been disallowed. The Ld. Sr. DR drew attention to prescribed Rule-6 which provides that the research facility should be approved by competent authority which the assessee doe…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…answering the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. The substantial questions deal with the amount expended by the assessee towards preoperative expenses for establishing a plant, whether would constitute capital 3 (2009) 311 ITR 405 (Delhi) 4 (2013) 352 ITR 376 (Delhi) 5 (2007) 293 ITR 231 (Delhi) 6 (2008) 298 ITR 194 SC ITA No.44/2017 -11- expenditure or revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 37 of the Act enables deduction of any expenditure which is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of…

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala

What is 4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 4 ITO v. Abdul G Nadiadwala

OCL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

BHARATKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

BHARATKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

M/S. ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

ABAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM