Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT

63 ITR (Trib) 355Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#18134 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e impugned order of the Principal CIT under s. 263. No substantial question of law arises. 38 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur We may also refer to the findings of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Amaira Pure Foods Private limited reported in (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 355 (Delhi) in which it has been observed as under : “29. We are also of the view that as per instruction No. 3 of 2016, it was not mandatory for the AO to make a reference to TPO. The appellant had explained before the learned Principal CIT that its case does not fall under the conditions referred to in the instruction No. 3 of 2016 and as suc…

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…paragraph no.20 of that order. Therefore, he submitted that the issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench. v. He further referred to the decision of co- ordinate Bench in Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 355 (Delhi) (Trib). Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 vi. On the issue of the goodwill, he referred to paragraph no. 6 to 6.2 of the order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that this goodwill was recorded in 2012. From 2012, depreciation on the WDV of the assessee is allowed. Since then it is forming part of block, in the past years depreci…

M/S A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., Jagaron vs. Pr.CIT-Central, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 123/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 123 & 124/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Pr. Commissioner of Village – Tapper Harnia, Income Tax (Central), Jalandhar Road, Jagraon, Ludhiana. Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFCA1352B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Virtual Court) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/A…

P I Industries Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 4/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

…nal was not in error in setting aside the impugned order of the Principal CIT under s. 263. No substantial question of law arises. 26. We may also refer to the findings of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Amira Pure Foods Private limited reported in (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 355 (Delhi) in which it has been observed as under : “29. We are also of the view that as per instruction No. 3 of 2016, it was not mandatory for the AO to make a reference to TPO. The assessee had explained before the learned Principal CIT that its case does not fall under the conditions referred to in the instruction No. 3 of 2016 and as such…

Secure Meters Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 2/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43ASection 92C

…al was not in error in setting aside the impugned order of the Principal CIT under s. 263. No substantial question of law arises. 22. We may also refer to the findings of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Amira Pure Foods Private limited reported in (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 355 (Delhi) in which it has been observed as under : “29. We are also of the view that as per instruction No. 3 of 2016, it was not mandatory for the AO to make a reference to TPO. The assessee had explained before the learned Principal CIT that its case does not fall under the conditions referred to in the instruction No. 3 of 2016 and as such…