Avaya Global Connect Ltd. v. ACIT

26 SOT 397Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#24057 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 2(42C)Section 24 Section 250 Section 260A Section 263 Section 32

Judgments citing Avaya Global Connect Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the transfer was not a sale transaction but resulted pursuant to the order of the High Court and failed to follow the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Avaya Global Connect Ltd. (26 SOT 397). 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing the claim of the Appellant Company for deduction u/s 801A of the Act of Rs. 17,26,15,757/-in respect of Water Treatment System at Kharach. 8. On the facts and circumstance of case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in uphold…

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the transfer was not a sale transaction but resulted pursuant to the order of the High Court and failed to follow the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Avaya Global Connect Ltd. (26 SOT 397). 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing the claim of the Appellant Company for deduction u/s 801A of the Act of Rs.17,26,15,757/-in respect of Water Treatment System at Kharach. 8. On the facts and circumstance of case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholdi…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 47

…rnative claim is squarely covered by the various judicial pronouncements and cited the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT –vs.- Motors & General Stores (P) Limited [66 ITR 692 (SC); (ii) Avaya Global Connect Limited –vs.- ACIT [ITA No. 341/Mum/2014] [26 SOT 397 (Mumbai); (iii) ITO, Hyderabad –vs.- Zinger Investments (P) Limited [38 ` taxmann.com 388 (Hyderabad-Trib.)]. 11. The ld. D.R. submitted in the rejoinder that the alternative claim of the assessee has not been considered and decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in detail and only a passing observation is made thereon, which cannot be I.T.A. No 2038/K…