BASF (India) Ltd. v CIT 280 ITR 136 (Bom); Shakti Raj Films Distributors v. CIT

249 ITR 612High Court2001#13842 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing BASF (India) Ltd. v CIT 280 ITR 136 (Bom); Shakti Raj Films Distributors v. CIT

ACIT, Circle- 47(1), New Delhi vs. J. Kishore Exports, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1551/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

…ber, 2009 that the earlier Circular of 1969 and its reiteration as found in Circular No. 786 of 2000 were withdrawn and such subsequent withdrawal of an earlier Circular cannot have retrospective operation as held by this Court in UTI v/s P.K. Unny and Others 249 ITR 612. Thus, it is seen that the changed position of law after the withdrawal of circular no. 7 of 2009 was not the subject matter of examination of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Similarly, the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s M/s FARIDA LEATHER COMPANY pertains to the Assessment Year 2010-11. i.e., Financial 200…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Knight Frank (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3256/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/S Knight Frank (I) Pvt. Ltd., The Addl. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax – 2(2), Army & Navy Building, Room No. 548, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai Pan: Aaack1544J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Dcit – 2(2), M/S Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 545, Paville House, Near Twin Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off. Veer Savarkar Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaack1544J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golwala & Amey Wagle (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav & S.K. Mishra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2019

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala & Amey Wagle (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav &

Section 143Section 145Section 145ASection 251(2)Section 40Section 43BSection 9

…009 that the earlier Circular of 1969 and its reiteration as found in Circular No. 786 of 2000 were withdrawn. However, such subsequent withdrawal of an earlier Circular cannot have retrospective operation as held by this Court in UTI v/s P.K. Unny and Others 249 ITR 612. (i) In view of the above, not only the entire issue stands concluded in favour of the Respondent-Assessee in the present facts by the CBDT Circular Nos. 23 of 2969 and 786 of 2000 which were in force during the subject Assessment Years but also by the decision of the Apex Court in Toshoku Ltd. (supra) in favour of the Respondent-Assessee. Thus,…

Chandrakant Gulabrao Borde, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 13(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare & Shri D.Y. PanditFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 10Section 147Section 17Section 28Section 56

…rishna 171 ITR 447 (Mad.) 9. G.R. Vishwanath Vs. ITO 29 ITD 142 (Bangalore) 10. Kapil Dev Vs. ACIT – ITA No.4788/Del./2003 and connected appeals dated 28-06-2013 11. CIT Vs. M/s. Gemini Distilliers 398 ITR 343 (SC) 12. UTI and Another Vs. P.K. Unny and others 249 ITR 612 (Bom.) 10. Referring to the additional ground raised by the assessee which is legal in nature, Ld. Counsel submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted for adjudication as no fresh facts are required to be investigated and all the material facts are available on record. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel relied…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S Tatra Vectra Motors Ltd

ITA/191/2012HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 260ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

…ave been guided by the parity of reasoning laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of BASF (India) Ltd. v CIT 280 ITR 136 (Bom); Shakti Raj Films Distributors v CIT 213 ITR 20 (Bom); and, Unit Trust of India & Anrs. v ITO 249 ITR 612 (Bom). The Hon’ble High Court has opined in the Date of Judgment 10-07-2018 I.T.A.No.191/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax-III & Anr. Vs. M/s. Tatra Vectra Motors Ltd., 8/11 case of BASF (India) Ltd. (supra) that the circulars which are in force during the relevant period are to be applied and the subsequent circulars either…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Netscout Systems Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1212/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.1212/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Netscout Systems Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As ‘Network General Software India Pvt. Ltd.) ‘Embassy Icon’, Ground Floor, No.3, Infantry Road, Bengaluru-1. … Respondent Pan:Aaics 0944 E & Cross Objn.No.30/Bang/2012 (In It(Tp)A No.1212/Bang/2011) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) (By The Assessee) Revenue By : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jcit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…we have been guided by the parity of reasoning laid down in the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of BASF (India) Ltd. v CIT 280 ITR 136 (Bom); Shakti Raj Films Distributors v CIT 213 ITR 20 (Bom); and, Unit Trust of India & Anrs. v ITO 249 ITR 612 (Bom). The Hon'ble High Court has opined in the case of BASF (India) Ltd. (supra) that the circulars which are in force during the relevant period are to be applied and the subsequent circulars either withdrawing or modifying the earlier circulars have no application. IT(TP)A No.1212/Bang/2011 Page 15 of 17 Moreover, the circulars in the nature…

Urai Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 367/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Urai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ito-8(3)(4)/(New)Ito- 53, Apollo Industrial Estate, 11(1)(4), 202, 2Nd Floor, Off. Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 093 M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacu 5802D Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri R.N. Vasani, A.R. & Shri V.H. Vasani, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Vasani, A.R. & Shri V.H. Vasani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Hemalatha, D.R

…, 2009 that the earlier Circular of 1969 and its reiteration as found in Circular No. 786 of 2000 were withdrawn. However, such subsequent withdrawal of an earlier Cir cular cannot have retrospective operation as held by this court in UTI v. P. K. Unny [2001] 249 ITR 612 (Bom). (i) In view of the above, not only the entire issue stands concluded in favour of the respondent-assessee in the present facts by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular Nos. 23 of 1969 and 786 of 2000 which were in force during the subject assessment years but also by the decision of the apex court in Toshoku Ltd. (supra) in favour of…

Sanaa Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt.Comm 4(3)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5748/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sanaa Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 135/B, Sanjay Bldg, Mittal Ward 4(3) (Osd) Industrial Estae, Morol, Andheri Aayakar Bhavana Vs. (E) Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai Pan No. Aaacs6150L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Mr. Bhadsesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Naveen Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 04-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…09 that the earlier Circular of 1969 and its reiteration as found in Circular No.786 of 2000 were withdrawn. However, such subsequent withdrawal of an earlier Circular cannot have retrospective operation as held by this Court in UTI v/s. P. K. Unny and Others 249 ITR 612. 8. Respectfully following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. (supra) and the board circular No. 786, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17-05-2017. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17-05-2…