Arvind N. Mafatlal v. T.A. Balakrishnan, Dy. CED

67 ITR 449High Court1968#21224 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Arvind N. Mafatlal v. T.A. Balakrishnan, Dy. CED

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Monica Chattopadhya v. ACIT – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 PAN: AJIPC1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Malav P. Sheth Department by : Mahita Nair Date of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Colwell & Salmon Communication (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv with

Section 154Section 92C

…o be discovered by long-drawn process of reasoning or examination of arguments on points where there may conceivably two opinions cannot be said to be mistake or error which is apparent from the record - Arvind N. Mafatlal V. T.A. Balakrishnan, Dy. CED (1968) 67 ITR 449 (Bom.).’ 5. In view of the above, as the computation of PLI done by the TPO is not a mistake apparent from record, the objection raised by the assessee in respect of this adjustment is hereby rejected. Copy of working of margin alongwith copies of balance sheet & profit and loss account in the cases of Mold Tek Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Servic…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 154

…dustries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 185 Taxman 409 (SC); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, 358 ITR 233 (Bom); iii. J.M. Shah Vs. J.M. Bhatia, AAC, 94 ITR 519 (Bom); iv. Arvind N. Mafatlal Vs. T.A. Balakrishnan, Dy. CED, 67 ITR 449 (Bom); 5.2 The ld. AR submitted that when an issue under consideration is a debatable, order on such an issue could not be passed in proceeding u/s. 154 of the Act. To support this argument the ld. AR placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Communications Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 3757…

ITO, WD-41(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Image Sign, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 650/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. K. Bandyopadhyay, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 40

…ts on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be mistake or error apparent from record. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arvind N. Mafatlal Vs. T. A. Balakrishnan (1968) 67 ITR 449 (Bom). We also appreciate the circular of CBDT No. 715 is binding only on the tax authorities and not on the assessee as admittedly the circular cannot detract from the provisions of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC). 8. W…