ACIT v. DHL Operations BV

106 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#3959 most cited

What is ACIT v. DHL Operations BV authority for?

The nature of gain arising on transfer of shares or securities depends on the assessee's intention at the time of acquisition. The court may also consider whether earning substantial profits attracts Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, potentially disentitling the assessee to exemption under Section 11.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. DHL Operations BV · 106 ITD 1 · section 11 · section 10(23C) · section 2(15) · section 11(4A) · nature of gain on transfer of shares · intention of assessee · charitable trust exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 10(23C)Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax ActSection 11 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

advancement of general public utilitysection 13(8)section 11(4a)proviso to section 2(15)mlimiscellaneous applicationsection 10(23c)section 2(15)kelvinatordate of transfersection 10disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing ACIT v. DHL Operations BV

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT LT.D,GURGOAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5389/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…(Kerala High Court); (iv) ACIT vs. PC Jewelers Jewellers Ltd., 137 taxmann.com taxmann.com (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi); ITA No.5389/Del/2024 & SA No. 577/Del/2025 Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs NFAC (v) ACIT vs. DHL Operations BV, [2007] 13 SOT 581 (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…A No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.S. Investment Pvt. Ltd.: 277 ITR 149 (Mad)  Arjun Kapur vs. DCIT: 70 ITD 161 (Del.)  Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT: 106 ITD 1 (Del.)  Gomti Credits (P) Limited v. DCIT: 100 TTJ 1132 (Del).  Ashish Chaudhary v. ITO : ITA No. 5227/Del./2014 (Del. ITAT) In the light of the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the nature of gain arising on transfer of shares/ securities depends upon the intention of the assessee at the time of acquisition of the share/ securities. In…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…A No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.S. Investment Pvt. Ltd.: 277 ITR 149 (Mad)  Arjun Kapur vs. DCIT: 70 ITD 161 (Del.)  Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT: 106 ITD 1 (Del.)  Gomti Credits (P) Limited v. DCIT: 100 TTJ 1132 (Del).  Ashish Chaudhary v. ITO : ITA No. 5227/Del./2014 (Del. ITAT) In the light of the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the nature of gain arising on transfer of shares/ securities depends upon the intention of the assessee at the time of acquisition of the share/ securities. In…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as ITA No. 3244 to 3247, 3265, 3270/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those asse…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3266/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as ITA No. 3244 to 3247, 3265, 3270/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those asse…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…nvestment (P) Ltd.: 210 Taxman 597 (Kar.) Gomti Credits (P) Limited vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 1132 (Del.) Pace Industries Ltd.: ITA 1106 / Del / 2004 (Del Trib.) Everplus Securities and Finance Ltd. vs DCIT: 101 ITD 151 (Del.) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 106 ITD 1 (Del.) 36. Specific reliance, in this regard, was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Elscope P. Ltd vs. CIT: 313 ITR 293 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble Court while dealing with the issue of taxability of profit arising to the assessee company on reduction of liabilities observed that for purposes of taxability under…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those assessment years was earning substantial prof…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3265/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those assessment years was earning substantial prof…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3247/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those assessment years was earning substantial prof…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)- 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3246/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those assessment years was earning substantial prof…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3245/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those assessment years was earning substantial prof…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3244/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…find that decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of the Appellant in relation to appeal for the Assessment Years applicable to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. Vide order dated 19/10/2006 [reported in (2007) 106 ITD 1 (MUM) SB] the Tribunal had, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Act as Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 applicable at the revenant time, held that since the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Act were attracted since the Assessee during those assessment years was earning substantial prof…

I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SARDARSHAHR GAUSHALA SAMITY, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection are dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11oSection 143(3)Section 57

…3) of the Act. On this basis the AO disallowed the exemption u/s 10(33) of the Act. The order of the AO was confirmed by ld CIT(A) but tribunal seta side the same. The Hon’ble High Court on appeal upheld the order of the tribunal. ii) ACIT Vs Saurashtra Trust 106 ITD 1 (Mum Tri) wherein it has been held that in the case of the trust income should be classified under various heads such as house property , capital gain and other sources and held that the assesse would be entitled to deductions on account of income computed under each head. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accord…

ACIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T LTD ( DATAR SWITCH GEAR LTD MERGED ), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)

…reliance on the following case laws:- (a) DCIT vs. Sheth & Sura Engg (P) Ltd (2008)(110 ITD 39)(Pune)(TM) (b) DCIT vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital (2007)(290 ITR 353)(Kar) 8 M/s. L&T Ltd. (Datar Switch Gear Ltd. merged) (c) ACIT vs. DHL Operations BV (2007)(13 SOT 581)(SB). The Ld D.R further submitted that the assets should be actually used for the purposes of business in order to claim depreciation. Mere fact that the asset is ready for use is not sufficient. In support of this proposition, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in the case of Dines…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…new case contrary to the assessment order] ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K Rai - (2010) 1271TD 204 (Mumbai) Kwal Pro Exports v. ACIT - (2008) 110 ITD 59 (Jodhpur) Eiscsson AB v. DD1T (Intl. Tax) - (2012) 191TR(T) 341 (Delhi) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 106 ITD 1 (Delhi) Further in the case of CIT v. Maersk Global Service Centre (I) Pvt Ltd (ITA No.692 and 693 of 2012 dated 22-08-2014 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court) it has been held that the Revenue cannot raise grounds before the Tribunal to get over the defects and lacunas so also any discrepancies in the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. As su…

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…new case contrary to the assessment order] ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K Rai - (2010) 1271TD 204 (Mumbai) Kwal Pro Exports v. ACIT - (2008) 110 ITD 59 (Jodhpur) Eiscsson AB v. DD1T (Intl. Tax) - (2012) 191TR(T) 341 (Delhi) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 106 ITD 1 (Delhi) Further in the case of CIT v. Maersk Global Service Centre (I) Pvt Ltd (ITA No.692 and 693 of 2012 dated 22-08-2014 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court) it has been held that the Revenue cannot raise grounds before the Tribunal to get over the defects and lacunas so also any discrepancies in the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. As su…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 906/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 124(3)Section 153ASection 170

…ace and accordingly, the A.O. has assessed the income for the assessment years where the partnership firm was in existence. In this regard, the Ld. D.R. has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Slokam Investment Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 106 ITD 1 (Del.). 8. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has apprised the facts in right perspective of the law in as much as when the warrant of authorisation was issued, or its execution and even when ITA Nos.903, 905, 906 & CO Nos.55, 57 & 58/Bang/2018 M/s. R.R. G…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 903/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 124(3)Section 153ASection 170

…ace and accordingly, the A.O. has assessed the income for the assessment years where the partnership firm was in existence. In this regard, the Ld. D.R. has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Slokam Investment Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 106 ITD 1 (Del.). 8. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has apprised the facts in right perspective of the law in as much as when the warrant of authorisation was issued, or its execution and even when ITA Nos.903, 905, 906 & CO Nos.55, 57 & 58/Bang/2018 M/s. R.R. G…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 905/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 124(3)Section 153ASection 170

…ace and accordingly, the A.O. has assessed the income for the assessment years where the partnership firm was in existence. In this regard, the Ld. D.R. has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Slokam Investment Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 106 ITD 1 (Del.). 8. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has apprised the facts in right perspective of the law in as much as when the warrant of authorisation was issued, or its execution and even when ITA Nos.903, 905, 906 & CO Nos.55, 57 & 58/Bang/2018 M/s. R.R. G…

NANDALAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) - II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6949/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Nandlal Tolani Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Charitable Trust Tax (Exem.)Ii(2), Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar R.P.Goenka Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaatn0043Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 24Section 45

…taxable then the same has to be computed as per the provisions of Income-tax Act including statutory deduction u/s.24(a) of the Act. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the judgment of Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Trust 106 ITD 1 (Mum) Special Bench wherein it is held that in the case of Trust, income should be classified under the head INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES and held that Assessee will be entitled to deductions on account of Income computed under each head. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that provisions o…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

ACIT v. DHL Operations BV (106 ITD 1) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax