Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

56 SOT 334Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#25265 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 359,963 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Automobiles & Infrastructure P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1178/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.Ajith Choradia, CA
Section 80Section 80I

…the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on Deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv). 2.2 Having regard to the Hon’ble ITAT’s decision in the case Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 334, (Chennai — Trib), the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the AO in rejecting the assessee’s claim on Deduction u/s.80IA(4). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the AO that as the assessee had acquired the business of generating power from M/s.K.A. Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd which was earlier generating powe…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Automobiles & Infrastructure P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1177/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.Ajith Choradia, CA
Section 80Section 80I

…the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on Deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv). 2.2 Having regard to the Hon’ble ITAT’s decision in the case Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 334, (Chennai — Trib), the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the AO in rejecting the assessee’s claim on Deduction u/s.80IA(4). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the AO that as the assessee had acquired the business of generating power from M/s.K.A. Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd which was earlier generating powe…

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.A.Infrastructure P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1176/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1176, 1177 & 1178/Mds/2015 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.Ajith Choradia, CA
Section 80Section 80I

…the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on Deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv). 2.2 Having regard to the Hon’ble ITAT’s decision in the case Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 56 SOT 334, (Chennai — Trib), the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the AO in rejecting the assessee’s claim on Deduction u/s.80IA(4). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the AO that as the assessee had acquired the business of generating power from M/s.K.A. Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd which was earlier generating powe…

Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (56 SOT 334) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax