Bhai Hirjibhai & Sons 1977 CTR (Guj) 27: (1977) 110 ITR 411 (Guj): TC53$.406#1 and CIT v. Mohan Lal Kansal

114 ITR 583Reported decision1978#7789 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)dividend distribution taxsection 10(34)section 57long term capital gainsdisallowance u/s 14along term capital gainsection 14asection 10income from other sourcesappeal before the tribunalprevious year

Judgments citing Bhai Hirjibhai & Sons 1977 CTR (Guj) 27: (1977) 110 ITR 411 (Guj): TC53$.406#1 and CIT v. Mohan Lal Kansal

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…ve heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal."' 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments…

M/S. HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

…ve heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal."' 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments…

M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2011-12 Atria Convergence Technologies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Special Range 1, Indian Express Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AACCA 8907B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA Respondent by : Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6088/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo International Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 303, Dlf Court Yard, Circle-3(1), Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaaca6447N Assessee By : Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr (Appellants) (Respondents) Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St August, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.37,32,000/- Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income- Tax.” 3. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Export Of Tyres, Tubes, Flaps, Leather Garments & Leather Accessories, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.9,47,07,931/-. The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Made Disallowance Of Rs.37,32,000/- On The Ground That The Assessee Has Suo Motu Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.8,17,000/- Only As Against The Disallowance As Per Section 14A Of The Act R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 Which Comes To Rs.45,49,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…d have heard Ld. counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal." 5 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those ITA No.9/D…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 6118/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Manu Kr. Giri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Sethi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…d have heard Ld. counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal." 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those ITA No.9/Del/…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Apollo International Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Dlf Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Courtyard, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaaca6447N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

…d have heard Ld. counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works' case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal's case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal." 11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those 10 investmen…

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ve heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments…

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ve heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments…

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ve heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments…

KARE ELECTRONICS & DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 799/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kare Electronics & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Flat No.101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Circle – 11(5), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aabck 7679 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…d counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Page 15 of 17 Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments…

M/S PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2526/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Ward – 5(1)(3), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aadcp 2196 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Girija, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 M/s. Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Flat No. 101, 1st Floor, Eden Park, Ward – 5(1)(3), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AADCP 2196 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Girija, CA Revenue by : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 19.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

J V HOLDINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1337/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. J. V. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1St Floor, Embassy Point, Income-Tax, 150 Infantry Road, Circle – 4[1][1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcj 9763 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Seetharam, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Seetharam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. J. V. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 1st Floor, Embassy Point, Income-tax, 150 Infantry Road, Circle – 4[1][1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN : AABCJ 9763 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Seetharam, CA Revenue by : Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 20.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order o…

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT M/s Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5th Floor, 1st Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. AB Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAFCA2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से…

ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TECHNIVISION VENTURES LTD ( FORMERLY M.S, SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD), SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5374/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5374/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ito 8(3)(2) बिधम/ Technivision Ventures Ltd.(Formerly M.S. Solix Vs. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road. Technologies Ltd) 1486, C-12- Mumbai Pin:400020 136,522 Lane No.13 Street No.14 Tarnaka, Secunderabad Pin: 500017 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca5943R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mundhe,(DR)For Respondent: K. Gopal
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 44ASection 801Section 801A

…n that point between some other High Courts it cannot be said that there is scope for debate so that s. 154 cannot be attracted.- CIT Vs. Ramji Bhai Hirjibhai & Sons 1977 CTR (Guj) 27: (1977) 110 ITR 411 (Guj): TC53$.406#1 and CIT Vs. Mohan Lal Kansal. (1978) 114 ITR 583 (P&H: TC 54R.666 followed; CIT Vs. Vindishwari Trading Corpn. 1978 CTR (All) 110 : (1978 113 ITR 791 (All): TC 54R.639#1 and T.S. Balram, ITO: Vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (Supreme Court): TC53R.165 distinguished.” 5. On appraisal of the above said finding we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case is quite simi…