Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT

404 ITR 564High Court2018#7617 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 11(1)(a)Section 167BSection 10(23C)Section 10AA

Issues it is cited on

section 10(25)recognised provident fundapproved superannuation fundsection 167bapproved gratuity fundsection 167section 60section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 164mistake apparent from recordsection 36(1)(vii)section 13(1)(c)

Judgments citing Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6160/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

…143(1) of the Act can be made on such issue where the divergent views are possible. In support of this submission, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom). 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”), vehemently relying upon the impugned order, submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) only against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, and therefore, the same was rightly dismissed by the learned CIT(A) as the issue was de…

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6159/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

…143(1) of the Act can be made on such issue where the divergent views are possible. In support of this submission, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom). 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”), vehemently relying upon the impugned order, submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) only against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, and therefore, the same was rightly dismissed by the learned CIT(A) as the issue was de…

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

…n his alternate ground the assessee has stated that no proper opportunity was granted to the assessee and therefore, the order is bad in law. 10. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the issue as to whether claim of a provision for bad debts is deductible u/s 36(1)(viii) or not, is debatable, and such a debatable claim cannot be disallowed by way of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. He submitted that following the same analogy w…

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2817/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

…ct passed without granting opportunity to the assessee, wherein an adjustment was made that was debatable in nature. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT Pune reported in (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund vs. ITO reported in (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj). 5.1 It is noted that, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund (supra) considered what amounts to a prima facie adjustment by observing as under: “A bare perusal of section 143(1)…

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

…ct passed without granting opportunity to the assessee, wherein an adjustment was made that was debatable in nature. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT Pune reported in (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund vs. ITO reported in (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj). 5.1 It is noted that, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund (supra) considered what amounts to a prima facie adjustment by observing as under: “A bare perusal of section 143(1)…

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2560/PUN/2024[AAATN9300L]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

…ct passed without granting opportunity to the assessee, wherein an adjustment was made that was debatable in nature. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT Pune reported in (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund vs. ITO reported in (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj). 5.1 It is noted that, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund (supra) considered what amounts to a prima facie adjustment by observing as under: “A bare perusal of section 143(1)…

U P SUGAR MILLS COGEN ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW vs. AO EXEMPTION CIRCLE , LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 145/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Swaran Singh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

…ne u/s. 143(1) of the Act to the assessee’s claim on which two views are possible. A debatable issue cannot be a subject matter of adjustment u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In arriving such conclusion reliance can be placed on ‘Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2018, 404 ITR 564 (Bom)] wherein their lordship have categorically held that debatable claim cannot be disallowed by way of summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. ITAT-Lucknow Page 7 of 9 UP Sugar Mills Cogen Association Vs AO Exemption Circle ITA No.145/LKW/2024 AY:2018-19 10. In the present case, the assessee reporting loss of ₹11,14,221/- with the total r…

AVIAXPERT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…s 154 of the Act: 1. ITO vs. M/s Volkart Brothers & Ors [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] 2. CIT Vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. [(1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)] 3. CIT Vs. Krishak Bharati Co-opeative Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 208 (Del)(HC)] 4. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT [(2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom) (HC)] 5. Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. DCIT [(1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom) (HC)]. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahavir Drilling Company (273 ITR 201) for the proposition that when there are divergent views of High Courts existing on the date of grant of r…

SAMSUNG C AND T CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 22(2) DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2184/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

…ar case of 6 | P a g e AY: 2018-19 disallowance of club membership fee reflected in Tax Audit Report as processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and held ; 5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported as 404 ITR 564(Bom) has held that debatable claim cannot be disallowed by way of an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in this regard are reproduced herein under: “10. In the present facts, it is undisputed that the decision of Gujarat High Court was referred to in the computation of income. Th…

ESJAY COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Esjay Commerce Limited Assistant Director of Income 1st floor, Room No. 15, 15, Tax, CPC, Bengaluru Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (PAN: AAACE5760C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA Respondent by : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 27.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the o…

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS),IT DEPT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2189/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletarun Kumar Ratan Vs. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Singh Rathi 503, Badrinath Tower, Sanjeev Enclave, Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpr3169F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Rajni Rani Roy.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Rajni Rani Roy.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tarun Kumar Ratan Vs. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi Singh Rathi 503, Badrinath Tower, Sanjeev Enclave, Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADHPR3169F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Satish Modi.AR Respondent by : Ms.Rajni Rani Roy.DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre…

SCV & CO. LLP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1756/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1756/Del/2020, A.Y. 2017-18 Scv & Llp Vs. Dcit, B-41, Lower Ground Floor Cpc Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi Pan : Aabfs5902N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 37Section 44A

…bai Bench has dealt similar case of disallowance of club membership fee reflected in Tax Audit Report as processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and held ; 5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported as 404 ITR 564(Bom) has held that debatable claim cannot be disallowed by way of an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in this regard are reproduced herein under: “10. In the present facts, it is undisputed that the decision of Gujarat High Court was referred to in the computation of income. Thu…

KESHAV GORE SMARAK TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGLORE, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…1) of the Act can be invoked only for limited purposes 7 ITA. No. 5037/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 specified therein and a debatable issue cannot be subject matter of adjustment in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act. [Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT : 404 ITR 564(Bom)]. 16. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the reasons for rejecting rectification application as stated in the order dated 11.10.2016 which read as under: “As seen from the return of income filed, t…

CHETAS GULABBHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC, , BANGALORE

ITA 1934/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1934/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2018-19 ) Chetas Gulabbhai Desai, 7-37 Kalyan Building, 130-D Khadilkar Road, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Aflpd-4523-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore -560 500 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

…. 143(1) of the Act to the assessee’s claim on which two views are possible A debatable issue cannot be a subject matter of adjustment u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported as 404 ITR 564(Bom) has held that debatable claim cannot be disallowed by way of an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in this regard are reproduced herein under: “10. In the present facts, it is undisputed that the decision of Gujarat High Court was referred to in the computation of income. Th…

AJAY B. GHOSE,THANE vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1720/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleajay B. Ghose Vs. Dcit – Cpc Flat No. 504, Angelo, Post Bag No. 1, Hiranandani Estate, Electronic City, Ghobander Road, Thane Bangaluru – 560500. Maharashtra– 400607. Pan/Gir No. : Aebpg1796A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gunjan Kakkad. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mehul B. Jain. DR
Section 143(1)Section 17(3)(i)

…[1999] 236 ITR 903 (SC) 4. Khanna & Annadhanam Vs. CIT [2003] 351 ITR 110 (Delhi) 5. Arunbhai R Naik Vs. ITO [2015] 379 ITR 511 (Guj) M/s Ajay B Ghose, Mumbai 6, Chandrakant Tolia Vs. ACIT [2009] 316 ITR 312 (Madras) 7. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 404 ITR 564 (Bombay) 8. Kvaverner John Brown Engg. Vs. ACIT [2008] 305 ITR 103 (SC) 9. Khatua Junkar Ltd Vs. KS Pathania [1992] 196 ITR 55 (Bombay)” 10. Further the severance payment to the assessee is voluntary in nature and it does not amount to compensation within the provisions u/s 17(3)(i) of the Act. We find High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs Ajit Kumar…