4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta

8 SCC 338Reported decision1999#11840 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2023.

Judgments citing 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…year in which it was spent/paid by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Once a return in that manner was filed, the AO was bound to carry out the assessment by applying the 3 (1972) 3 SCC 252 4 (1997) 6 SCC 117 5 (1978) 4 SCC 358 6 (1999) 8 SCC 338 Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and provisions of that Act and not to go beyond the said return. There is no estoppel against the 12 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd Statute and the Act enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is claimed. 21) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of t…

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHINANO RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT 4(3)(2), M/s. Shinano Retail Pvt. Room No.649, Ltd., 6th Floor, 4th Floor, Court House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 002 PAN: AALCS 4572R (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.257/M/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.1205/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Shinano Retail Pvt. DCIT 4(3)(2), Ltd., Room No.649, 4th Floor, Court House, 6th Floor, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Dhobi Talao,…

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A

…Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to claim the entire expen…

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv

Section 14A

…Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the 9 I.T.As. No.761 & 762/Del/2016 assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, i…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv

Section 14A

…Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the 9 I.T.As. No.761 & 762/Del/2016 assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, i…

RAJAT MAKAN,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 958/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 143Section 40

…s & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1997] 6 SCC 117; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta [1978] 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta [1999] 8 SCC 338”. This principle is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10 10. As far as principle relating to applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the act is concerned, the following erudite observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Hardarshan Singh (supra) will support our findings: “5. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing…

ASK PROPERTY INVESTMENT ADVISORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1810/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)

…Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 19. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to claim the entire expend…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. CHHATA SUGAR CO. LTD

C.A. No.-007488-007492 - 2001Supreme Court27 Feb 2004

For Respondent: M/s Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd

Section 548

…nsidered as was the case in Gasket Radiators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Another [1985) 2 SCC 68]. We may also notice a decision of this Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2002) 8 SCC 338], wherein a Bench of this Court distinguished C.C.E. vs. Kisan Sahakari Chinni Mills Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 697] holding that the impost impugned therein did not have a backing of a statutory provision and, thus, would not be a tax. But it was clearly held that the same would be so if the levy is imposed by any central or State legislature or any…