5. Emgeeyar Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

159 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19332 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)

Judgments citing 5. Emgeeyar Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Panichikandy Mohandasan, Kasargod vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kannur Range, Kannur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 605/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 40A(3)

…hikandy Mohandasan 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. It is submitted that disallowance of electricity charges paid to KSEB is covered by the decisions of: (i) Samna Sanjay Raisoni v ITS [2916] 70 taxmann.com 7/159 ITD 1 (Pune Trib), (ii) CIT vs. Devendrappa M. Kalal [2013] 39 taxmann.com 16/ 2019 Taxman 122 (Kar) and (iii) Circular No. 34 (F. No. 13A/92/69-IT (A-II, dated 05.03.1970 issued by CBDT. Since the payment was made to a government company, which is wholly owned by the State of Kerala, it can be treated as payment to government concern in view of the deci…

Mohan Shriniwas Bhise, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 3, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 900/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69

…dia, 1981 AIR 212 (SC), dated 13.11.1980; ii. Dr. P. Balasubramanian Vs. CCIT, 448 ITR 318 (Madras-HC), dated 10.08.2022; iii. Mohan Baliramji Thakre and Ors. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 375/NAG/2022 (Nagpur-Tribunal), dated 19.04.2024; iv. Smt. Sapna Raysoni Vs. ITO, 159 ITD 1 (Pune-Tribunal), dated 29.02.2016; v. ITO Vs. Mahatma Gandi University, 177 ITD 508 (Cochin Tribunal), dated 14.05.2019; vi. Ram Kanwar Rana Vs. ITO, 159 ITD 431 (Delhi-Tribunal), dated 16.06.2016; vii. Adinath Wandhekar Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1388/PUN/2023 (Pune- Tribunal), dated 08.03.2024; and viii. Ravindra Kharche Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 228/NAG/2023…

M/S. United Salt Works, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

ITA 208/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S United Salt Works Income Tax Officer, 9, Pruthvi Nagar, 1St Floor, Ward-1(3), 2Nd Floor, Above Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Bank Of Baroda Building, 392001 Station Road, Bharuch- Pan : Aaafu 4725 A 392001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 254(1)

…nstrumentality or agency of the Government had after exhaustive deliberations been looked into and adjudicated upon by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, viz. ITAT, Pune Bench "B", Pune in the case of Smt. Sapna Sanjay Raisoni v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 7/159 ITD 1, Pune. In the aforesaid order, it was observed by the Tribunal that if a body was found to be an instrumentality or the agency of the Government, then, it would be an authority included in the term "State" under article 12 of the Constitution of India. After referring to article 12 of the Constitution of India, it was observed by the Tribunal that…

Vasudev Gangwani, Jaipur vs. ADIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 576/JPR/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

…ot saved under provision of section 150(1) or 150(2). Hence, order of CIT(A) that action of AO was not in accordance with law and assessment order passed by AO was liable to be quashed, was confirmed. 5. Emgeeyar Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 138 DTR 20/159 ITD 1 (Chennai) (Trib.) (TM) While disposing of the appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05, a casual observation was made by the Tribunal to deal with the issue before them as to whether the capital gains is assessable in AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. Pursuant thereto, AO sought to invoke the provisions of sec. 148 r.w.s. 150 for the AY 2001-02 and accordingly…