ACIT v. Nagendra Polyplast

69 SOT 718Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16050 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80HHCSection 92C(4)Section 143(3)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 28(iv)section 115jasection 234dsection 80hhccorporate guaranteeright to receivesection 80hhsection 80ibsection 92ca(3)section 80iasection 254(1)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Nagendra Polyplast

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3878/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: "I. TAXABILITY OF ADVANCE LICENCE BENEFIT RECEIVABLE: Rs.9,79
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…ered in favour of assessee by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Impel Forge & allied Industries Ltd (326 ITR 27 P&H), Madras High Court in CIT Vs Light Alloy Product Ltd (373 ITR 322 Mad) and Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Nagendra Polyplast ( 69 SOT 718 Mumbai). 68. On the other hand, the Id CIT-DR for the revenue, on various items supported the order of Id CIT(A) and in revenues appeal supported the stand of AO. In without prejudice submissions, it was argued that in reducing the items of 'other income' except of job work charges and sales tax refund form the profit and gain of the business on t…

Asst CIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…d in favour of assessee by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Impel Forge & allied Industries Ltd (326 ITR 27 P&H), Madras High Court in CIT Vs Light Alloy Product Ltd (373 ITR 322 Mad) and Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Nagendra Polyplast ( 69 SOT 718 Mumbai). 68. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue, on various items supported the order of ld CIT(A) and in revenues appeal supported the stand of AO. In without prejudice submissions, it was argued that in reducing the items of ‘other income’ except of job work charges and sales tax refund form the profit and gain of the business…

Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formlery Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…d in favour of assessee by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Impel Forge & allied Industries Ltd (326 ITR 27 P&H), Madras High Court in CIT Vs Light Alloy Product Ltd (373 ITR 322 Mad) and Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Nagendra Polyplast ( 69 SOT 718 Mumbai). 68. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue, on various items supported the order of ld CIT(A) and in revenues appeal supported the stand of AO. In without prejudice submissions, it was argued that in reducing the items of ‘other income’ except of job work charges and sales tax refund form the profit and gain of the business…

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formerly Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…d in favour of assessee by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Impel Forge & allied Industries Ltd (326 ITR 27 P&H), Madras High Court in CIT Vs Light Alloy Product Ltd (373 ITR 322 Mad) and Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Nagendra Polyplast ( 69 SOT 718 Mumbai). 68. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue, on various items supported the order of ld CIT(A) and in revenues appeal supported the stand of AO. In without prejudice submissions, it was argued that in reducing the items of ‘other income’ except of job work charges and sales tax refund form the profit and gain of the business…

The ACIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphorous Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…d in favour of assessee by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Impel Forge & allied Industries Ltd (326 ITR 27 P&H), Madras High Court in CIT Vs Light Alloy Product Ltd (373 ITR 322 Mad) and Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Nagendra Polyplast ( 69 SOT 718 Mumbai). 68. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue, on various items supported the order of ld CIT(A) and in revenues appeal supported the stand of AO. In without prejudice submissions, it was argued that in reducing the items of ‘other income’ except of job work charges and sales tax refund form the profit and gain of the business…

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd(Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cen Cir-38, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

…d in favour of assessee by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Impel Forge & allied Industries Ltd (326 ITR 27 P&H), Madras High Court in CIT Vs Light Alloy Product Ltd (373 ITR 322 Mad) and Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT Vs Nagendra Polyplast ( 69 SOT 718 Mumbai). 68. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue, on various items supported the order of ld CIT(A) and in revenues appeal supported the stand of AO. In without prejudice submissions, it was argued that in reducing the items of ‘other income’ except of job work charges and sales tax refund form the profit and gain of the business…