ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai

126 TTJ 984Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#14799 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai

Jet Airways (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistry-ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari and Ms.Arju Goradia-DR
Section 115JSection 254(1)

…that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had not admitted the issue as substantial question of law in the appeal filed by the Department. The AR relied upon the cases of Aishwaria K. Rai(127 ITD 205),Mahindra and Mahindra (313 ITR -Mum-Trib-263) and Anand Y.Chauhan(126 TTJ 984). 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that in the earlier years’ order theTribunal has (ITA/No.3865/4200/7383/7317/7316/7312/6690/ 6594/ M/11dtd.05/04/2013)deliberated upon the issue extensively and had decided in favour of the assessee as under: “8. The next issue i.e. ground Nos.6 & 7 are in regar…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Segram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3811/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…al principle that CIT(DR)’s arguments are to be confined to support or defend the AO/TPO/CIT(A) order and that he cannot set up an altogether different case [ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai [2010] 2 ITR (Trib) 644 (Mumbai Tribunal), ITO v. Anant Y. Chavan (2009) 126 TTJ 984 (Pune Tribunal), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No. 2606/Mum/2000 (Mumbai Tribunal Special Bench) and DCIT v. M/s. Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2138/Mum/2010 (Mumbai Tribunal)]. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 4. The contents of paragraph 4 of CIT(DR)’s reply are untenabl…

Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra,Adv.,Harpreet Singh, Adv., Anmol Anand, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR, B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…al principle that CIT(DR)’s arguments are to be confined to support or defend the AO/TPO/CIT(A) order and that he cannot set up an altogether different case [ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai [2010] 2 ITR (Trib) 644 (Mumbai Tribunal), ITO v. Anant Y. Chavan (2009) 126 TTJ 984 (Pune Tribunal), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No. 2606/Mum/2000 (Mumbai Tribunal Special Bench) and DCIT v. M/s. Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2138/Mum/2010 (Mumbai Tribunal)]. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 4. The contents of paragraph 4 of CIT(DR)’s reply are untenabl…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2770/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…al principle that CIT(DR)’s arguments are to be confined to support or defend the AO/TPO/CIT(A) order and that he cannot set up an altogether different case [ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai [2010] 2 ITR (Trib) 644 (Mumbai Tribunal), ITO v. Anant Y. Chavan (2009) 126 TTJ 984 (Pune Tribunal), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No. 2606/Mum/2000 (Mumbai Tribunal Special Bench) and DCIT v. M/s. Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2138/Mum/2010 (Mumbai Tribunal)]. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 4. The contents of paragraph 4 of CIT(DR)’s reply are untenabl…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2530/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…al principle that CIT(DR)’s arguments are to be confined to support or defend the AO/TPO/CIT(A) order and that he cannot set up an altogether different case [ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai [2010] 2 ITR (Trib) 644 (Mumbai Tribunal), ITO v. Anant Y. Chavan (2009) 126 TTJ 984 (Pune Tribunal), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No. 2606/Mum/2000 (Mumbai Tribunal Special Bench) and DCIT v. M/s. Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2138/Mum/2010 (Mumbai Tribunal)]. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 4. The contents of paragraph 4 of CIT(DR)’s reply are untenabl…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Anmol Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 4285/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 154Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4285/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ACIT, Circle 1 (1), vs. M/s. Anmol Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. C/o Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, A – 1/25, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AAACA0870F) CO No.3/Del./2014 (in ITA No.4285/Del./2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/s. Anmol Polymers Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), C/o Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. A – 1/25, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AAACA0870F) (APPELLANT) (RESP…

ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai (126 TTJ 984) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax