Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Director of Income Tax (Exemption)

96 ITD 263Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#25939 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Director of Income Tax (Exemption)

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

…(Hyd-Trib) • Pravin Navin Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Asstt. CIT (2009) 27(II) ITCL 498 (Mum- Trib); (2009) 29 SOT 284 (Mum-Trib.) • Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), (2006) 278 ITR(AT) 83 (Mum-Trib); (2005) 96 ITD 263 (Mum-Trib); The Ld. Pr. CIT, accordingly set aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. and directed him. to make fresh assessment denovo after properly examining the fact of the case and relevant legal provision and conducting proper enquiry after affording the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6…

Abb Fz-Llc, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…he following decisions in support of the contention that in the absence of Article dealing with ‘FTS’ under the DTAA, the income of the non-resident is exigible to tax under the provisions of domestic law : i) PILCOM V ITO – 77 ITD 218 (Cal); ii) BCCI V DIT – 96 ITD 263 (Mum); iii) A.P. Moller, Maersk Agency India (P) Ltd. V DCIT (2004) 89 ITD 563 (Mum); iv) IAC V Daimler Benz AG, West Germany (1981) 36 ITD 508 (Bom); v) DCIT V Turuoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 143) (MP); and vi) DCIT V TVS Electronics Ltd. in ITA No.811/MDS/2010. 9.1.2 In PILCOM V ITO - (77 ITD 218) (Cal), the contention of the assess…

Topsgrup Electronics Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Shah

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…argeable at all transfer pricing provisions of section 92-B(i) of the IT Act would not apply. 9.1 The learned DR, on the other hand relied upon the decision ITAT Mumbai Bench “B” in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. DIT (Exemption), [2005] 96 ITD 263 (Mum) wherein it was held that 11 M/s. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Ltd. ‘the said order did not show that the AO had considered or applied his mind to the factual and legal aspects of the case. It was a stereotyped order which simply accepted what the assessee stated in its application without proper examination of the factual and legal aspects of…