Apollo Tyres Ltd. and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

262 ITR 330High Court2002#11427 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

MALCO ENERGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115J

…ion 115JB of the act is correctly made and should be upheld. 34. In the rejoinder the learned authorized representative submitted Malco Energy Ltd.; A.Y.2015-16 i. Relying upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of kinetic Motors Co Ltd 262 ITR 330 wherein it has been held that it is not permissible to the assessing officer to make adjustment to the book profit beyond authorized and to recast the profit and loss account. ii. Relying upon the decision of the coordinate bench in Orson Trading (P.) Ltd. 2SOT503 that the report made in form number 29B not carried out any adjustment on account…

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3890/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…Act and the same were certified by the auditors, therefore, there was no scope for AO to make adjustment to the book profit beyond what was authorized by definition in Explanation 1 to Sec. 115JB of the Act as held in the case of Kinetic Motor C. Ltd Vs. DCIT 262 ITR 330 (Bom). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT 255 ITR 273 (SC) held that powers of the AO to adjustments which are authorized under Sec. 115J/115B of the Act, the provisions of Sec. 14A ITA.No,3890&4364/5063&5483/5165&5043/5166&5044/Mum/2016 M/s. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai. cannot be imported while computing book profi…

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4261/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Singh, CIT, DR

…, the assessing officer could only invoke Explanation to section 115JB(2). While holding so, he relied on the decisions in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC), Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs CIT, 216 CTR102 (SC), Kinetic Motor Co Ltd vs DCIT, 262 ITR 330 (Bom) and Sri Hariram Hotels (P) Ltd vs CIT, 237 Taxman 564 (Kar), etc.] 24. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who, while deleting the addition, has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court approving the adjustment of security premium account with brought forward losses. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

DEWANCHAND RAMSARAN INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2654/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dewanchand Ramsaran Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Industries P. Ltd. Mumbai, 7/8 B Trade World, Kamla City, Circle 6(2) Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai Parel, Mumbai- 400 013 Pan No. Aabcd7193H .. Appellant Respondent Assessee By .. Miss Arti Sathe, Ar .. Shri B. S. Bist, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing .. 05-04-2017 .. Date Of Pronouncement 05-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 115Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

…aragraph from the order of the Tribunal: - "As to whether the arrears of depreciation can be provided or not, the matter is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal as also by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co. Limited 262 ITR 330 wherein also there was a change in the method of providing depreciation and the profits of the assessee were lowered by Rs. 6,32,65,430/-. The High Court held that under the Companies Act, both the straight-line method and written down value method are recognized and, therefore, once the amount of depreciation actually debited in the profit and l…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. T. STANES & COMPANY LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 888/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 115J

…per the provisions of Income Tax Act. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 262 ITR 330. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd reported in 305 ITR 409 held that the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the net profit as shown in the P & L account which is prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 except for the adjustments permissible under Explanation 1…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. T.STANES AND COMPANY LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 115J

…per the provisions of Income Tax Act. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 262 ITR 330. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd reported in 305 ITR 409 held that the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the net profit as shown in the P & L account which is prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 except for the adjustments permissible under Explanation 1…

ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 587/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 208Section 234BSection 32

…unt of the deferred tax assets included in the brought forward loss should be excluded from the said amount is not tenable. We are also relying in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2002] 262 ITR 330 (Bom) held that the AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the audited Profit and Loss Account which was accepted by shareholders and filed with…

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA

ITA 581/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 208Section 234BSection 32

…unt of the deferred tax assets included in the brought forward loss should be excluded from the said amount is not tenable. We are also relying in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2002] 262 ITR 330 (Bom) held that the AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the audited Profit and Loss Account which was accepted by shareholders and filed with…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R.T.C.L. LTD

ITA/612/2009HC Delhi28 Mar 2012
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 260

…graph from the order of the Tribunal:- “As to whether the arrears of depreciation can be provided or not, the matter is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal as also by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co. Limited 262 ITR 330 wherein also there was a change in the method of providing depreciation and the profits of the assessee were lowered 2012:DHC:2168-DB ITA 612/2009 Page 6 of 10 by Rs.6,32,65,430/-. The High Court held that under the Companies Act, both the straight-line me…

Apollo Tyres Ltd. and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (262 ITR 330) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax