Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

255 ITR 273Supreme Court of India2002#88 most cited

What is Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115J, arrears of depreciation, including those arising from assets working extra shifts, are a necessary charge on profits if debited to the profit and loss account and are allowable as such.

657

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Apollo Tyres Ltd v CIT · Section 115J · Section 115JB · book profits · minimum alternate tax · MAT · depreciation arrears · extra shift depreciation · debit to profit and loss account · allowable charge on profits

Also reported as

122 Taxmann 562174 CTR 521

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147Section 8DSection 92CA(3)Section 195
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 115jabook profitssection 115jsection 115jbsection 35disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 115section 80iasection 32section 14a

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

Jubilant Energy (P) Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 3927/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 2012-13] Jubilant Energy [P] Limited Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Fka Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd Circle - 1 Plot No. 1A, Sector 16A, Noida Institutional Area, Noida

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. For this proposition, we draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd 255 ITR 273. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the following issue arose for consideration: “Can an Assessing Officer while assessing a company for income tax under Section 115-J of the Income Tax Act question the correctness of the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee company and certified by the statutory auditors of the company as having been…

Wellknown Polyester Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(4), Mumbai

ITA 5850/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…understood as a charge against the profits of the company. 8. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the assessee- company. On the point of law, CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) to point out that it was impermissible for the assessee to make an adjustment to the net profit as per Profit & Loss Account other than the adjustments permitted in Explanation-1 to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the impugned adjustment made by the assessee to the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account prepared und…

Wellknown Polyester Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(4), Mumbai

ITA 5849/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…understood as a charge against the profits of the company. 8. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the assessee- company. On the point of law, CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) to point out that it was impermissible for the assessee to make an adjustment to the net profit as per Profit & Loss Account other than the adjustments permitted in Explanation-1 to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the impugned adjustment made by the assessee to the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account prepared und…

Wellknown Polyester Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(4), Mumbai

ITA 5848/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…understood as a charge against the profits of the company. 8. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the assessee- company. On the point of law, CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) to point out that it was impermissible for the assessee to make an adjustment to the net profit as per Profit & Loss Account other than the adjustments permitted in Explanation-1 to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the impugned adjustment made by the assessee to the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account prepared und…

DCIT CC 7(4), Mumbai vs. Well Known Polysters P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5498/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…understood as a charge against the profits of the company. 8. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the assessee- company. On the point of law, CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) to point out that it was impermissible for the assessee to make an adjustment to the net profit as per Profit & Loss Account other than the adjustments permitted in Explanation-1 to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the impugned adjustment made by the assessee to the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account prepared und…

DCIT CC 7(4), Mumbai vs. Well Known Polysters P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5497/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…understood as a charge against the profits of the company. 8. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the assessee- company. On the point of law, CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) to point out that it was impermissible for the assessee to make an adjustment to the net profit as per Profit & Loss Account other than the adjustments permitted in Explanation-1 to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the impugned adjustment made by the assessee to the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account prepared und…

DCIT CC 7(4), Mumbai vs. Well Known Polysters P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5496/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…understood as a charge against the profits of the company. 8. The CIT(A) considered the submissions put forth by the assessee- company. On the point of law, CIT(A) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) to point out that it was impermissible for the assessee to make an adjustment to the net profit as per Profit & Loss Account other than the adjustments permitted in Explanation-1 to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. According to the CIT(A), the impugned adjustment made by the assessee to the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account prepared und…

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

…Asst. CIT [2009] 318 ITR (AT) 1 (Kol) [SB] ; [2009] 121 ITD 498 (Kol) [SB] ; 6. C. Bharath Kumar v. Deputy CIT [2005] 4 SOT 593 (Bang.) ; 7. Deputy CIT v. SSKI Investors Services (P.) Ltd. [2008] 113 TTJ (Mumbai) 511; and 8. Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC)." 20. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee is in the business of cash future arbitrage. The assessee takes benefit in the price difference in the two different market/segments. The assessee in his business buys a particular scrip in the cash segment and simultaneously sells the same scrip…

Bhansali Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 426/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (Osd) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccb7808E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 147

…b) the amount so credited must be carried to Reserve. In the impugned case, we noted that the said sum of Rs.10 Crores has not been credited to P & L a/c and directly carried to Capital Reserve in the balance sheet. Hon'ble SC also in the case of Apollo Tyres 255 ITR 273 (SC) held that AO cannot vary the book profit other then the changes as permitted in S 115JB itself. In view of the dictum of law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court, book profit disclosed by the assessee company in audited P & L a/c for impugned assessment year cannot be altered by adding back Capital Reserve. We have also gone through the decis…

DCIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Geetanjali Trading & Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1903/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1), M/S Geetanjali Trading Room No. 23, Ground & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakarbhavan, 3A, Barodawala M.K. Road, Mansion, 81, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan No. Aaacg3265A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 281/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Geetanjali Trading Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 23, Ground Vs. 3A, Barodawala Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mansion, 81, Dr. Annie M.K. Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018 Pan No. Aaacg3265A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.N.Motiwalla,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeshwar Yadav, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…249 ITR 597 (Bom) and DCIT v. Bombay Diamond Co. 33 DTR 59 and the requirement as to profit and loss account as per Schedule VI to the Companies Act. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) and the Notification on Revised Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. M/s Geetanjali Trading 8 ITA No. 1903/Mum/2016 CO. No. 281/Mum/2017 5.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. We begin with the submission of the Ld. DR. In Indo Rama Synthetics (I…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Tirupathi vs. M/S. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Tirupathi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed &

ITA 1533/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…e provisions of Companies Act and hence net profit as per such Profit & Loss Account has to be arrived at and there is no jurisdiction to tinker with the net percentage so arrived at, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (255 ITR 273). In the aforecited decision, the Court observed that while assessing a company under Income Tax Act the correctness of Profit & Loss Account prepared by the assessee-company (certified by the statutory auditors of the company) prepared in accordance with the requirement of Part II & III of Schedule-VI of Companies Act, cannot be questioned. The…

M/S. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed &

ITA 1460/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…e provisions of Companies Act and hence net profit as per such Profit & Loss Account has to be arrived at and there is no jurisdiction to tinker with the net percentage so arrived at, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (255 ITR 273). In the aforecited decision, the Court observed that while assessing a company under Income Tax Act the correctness of Profit & Loss Account prepared by the assessee-company (certified by the statutory auditors of the company) prepared in accordance with the requirement of Part II & III of Schedule-VI of Companies Act, cannot be questioned. The…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 478/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…work out the real profit of the company u/s 115JB said amount needs to be deducted, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres ITA No.439 & 478/Kol/2016 A.Y 2010-11 Tata Metaliks Ltd. Vs DCIT Cir.3(1)/ITO Wd.3(2), Kol. Page 8 (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) rw Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT(2011) 330 ITR 363(SC). The appellant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investments CO.(P) Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 597(BOM), although the copy of judgment in this case was not furnished. The reliance on the decision by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court by the appellant is found to…

Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 439/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…work out the real profit of the company u/s 115JB said amount needs to be deducted, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres ITA No.439 & 478/Kol/2016 A.Y 2010-11 Tata Metaliks Ltd. Vs DCIT Cir.3(1)/ITO Wd.3(2), Kol. Page 8 (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) rw Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT(2011) 330 ITR 363(SC). The appellant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investments CO.(P) Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 597(BOM), although the copy of judgment in this case was not furnished. The reliance on the decision by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court by the appellant is found to…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. First Flight Couriers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for the AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 5399/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S First Flight Couriers Pvt. Income Tax-12(2)(1), Room Vs. Ltd. G 1001/02, Lotus No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Corporation Park, Off Jay Coach Bhavan, M.K. Road Flyover, Western Exp. Highway, Mumbai-400020. Graham Firth Steel Comp, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaacf0841R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Brijmohan Pooranmal Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Brijmohan PooranmalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

…rs Pvt. Ltd. 24. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held : “8.3 I have considered the stand of the AO as well as the submissions of the appellant. In view of the Landmark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 255 ITR 273 SC it is settled position of law that Assessing Officer has limited power to make any adjustment in the book profit other than prescribed in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act. I have also gone through the various judgment of High Court and ITAT including decisions of Hon’ble HC, Mumbai in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Echjay…

Beekaylon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 1(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 5905/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Beekaylon Synthetics Acit1(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd Room No.579, बनाम/ Jasville, 2Nd Floor, 9 New Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marine Mumbai. Lines, M.K. Road, Opp. Liberty Cinema, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacb2976M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit1(1)(1), M/S. Beekaylon Synthetics Room No.579, Pvt. Ltd बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Jasville, 2Nd Floor, 9 New Vs. M.K. Road, Marine Mumbai. Lines, Opp. Mumbai-400020 Liberty Cinema, Mumbai – 400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacb2976M Shri V. Vidyadhar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)

…the total packing expenses and miscellaneous expenses, while computing the book profit u/s 115 JB of the Act has been challenged. It was contended that no such addition is required for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Apollo Tyres (255 ITR 273) 3.1. If the special provision u/s 115JB of the Act for payment of tax by certain companies is analyzed, it says that where in the case of the assessee being a company, the income tax payable on the total income as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year, relevant to Assessment Year commencing on or after, the 1st day of April 2…

Pacific Plantations Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1643/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Pacific Plantations Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 5418 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Patodi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No. 1643/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Pacific Plantations Ltd. -vs- DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata [PAN: AABCP 5418 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri R.K. Patodi, FCA For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 28.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT…

ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Adhunik Metaliks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1934/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1934/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Cc-1(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. [Pan: Aabcn 5676 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shikha Agarwal, ACA
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No. 1934/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. [PAN: AABCN 5676 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri G. Hangshing, CIT For the Respondent : Shikha Agarwal, ACA Date of Hearing : 26.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in App…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…e the AO. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision in Goetze India Ltd. dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the above issue. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 12.5 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (255 ITR 273) (SC) and CIT v. Echjay Forgings (I) Ltd. (116 Taxman 322) (Bombay HC). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 12.6 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We have mentioned at para 6.4 the ratio laid down in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd (supra) which is app…

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax, Cc-4(1), Construction House ‘B’, 2 Nd 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg, Vs. Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2735J Makewaves Sea Resort Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax Central Construction House ‘B’, 2Nd Circle 4(1),19Th Floor, Air Vs. Floor, 623, Linking Road, India Bldg., Nariman Point, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacm0673J

For Appellant: Sanjay Swami, ARFor Respondent: Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd. of Income Tax, CC-4(1), Construction House ‘B’, 2 nd 19th Floor, Air India Bldg, Vs. Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACP2735J Makewaves Sea Resort Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd. of Income Tax Central Construction House ‘B’, 2nd Circle 4(1),19th Floor, Air Vs. Floor, 623, Linking Road, India Bldg., Nariman Point, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant ..…