54 SOt 177 (Delhi) (supra), ACIT v. M. Satish Kumar

160 ITD 78Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#19362 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing 54 SOt 177 (Delhi) (supra), ACIT v. M. Satish Kumar

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…onsidered for the purpose 74 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) of deciding the validity of order passed under section 263 of the Act. In this regard, the Appellant relied on the decision “Damodar Valley Corporation vs. DCIT (160 ITD 78). The ld AR argued that this reason is therefore factually incorrect and also for the same having not been put to the assessee during the course of revision proceedings, it can not be countenanced in deciding the validity of jurisdiction under section 263. 7.15. The ld AR also presented before the bench the general propositions on invalidity and i…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

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

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…R 451) (SC); and, iii) State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 3498 of 2020) The learned senior counsel further referred to following case laws :- i) Ambuja Cement Limited v. CIT (ITA No. 3563/Mum/2016); ii) Damodar Valley Corporation v. DCIT (160 ITD 78) (Kol Trib.); iii) Smt. Shardaben B. Patel v. PCIT (180 ITD 328) (Ahm. Trib.); and, iv) H.M. Mehta v. ACIT (387 ITR 561) (Bom.) 9. On the merits of the issue of payments towards winning from lottery or crossword puzzles, it has been submitted that learned Commissioner has proceeded on a factually incorrect premise that the Assessing Officer has f…

M/S. Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…efit under but it gives impetus to the view that generation of electricity is a manufacturing process and qualifies for the benefits under section 32(1)(iia).” 35. Further, the coordinated bench of Kolkata Tribunal in case of Damodar Valley Corporation (2016) 160 ITD 78, case pertaining to A.Y. 11-12 held that On perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto A.Y. 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the circumstances, the assessee who is desirous of claiming the a…

ACIT, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota

ITA 82/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…with effect from 1.4.2013 but it gives impetus to the view that generation of electricity is a manufacturing process and qualifies for the benefits under section 32(1)(iia).” Further, the Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in case of Damodar Valley Corporation (2016) 160 ITD 78, case pertaining to A.Y. 11-12 held that on perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto A.Y. 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the circumstances, the assessee who is desirous of claiming the a…