Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Petals Engineers P. Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 577 (Bom) (v) CIT v. Nalin P. Shah (HUF)

366 ITR 502High Court2014#17760 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Petals Engineers P. Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 577 (Bom) (v) CIT v. Nalin P. Shah (HUF)

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

M/S.Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…imited [2015] 229 Taxman 555 (Del); 11) CIT vs. Shervani Hospitalities Limited [2013] 261 CTR 449 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P.) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 558 (P&H); 13) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 101 (Del); 14) CIT vs. Larsen and Turbo Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 502 (Bom); 15) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC); and 16) Waman Hari Pethe Sons Private Limited vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 2730/Mum/2016) 18. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee’s contention that the levy of penalty is not sustainable on account of defect in the notice issued, is not at all sustainable. In thi…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…Developers (2015) 231 Taxman 665 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs. S.M. Construction (2015) 233 Taxman 263 (Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Petals Engineers P. Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 577 (Bom) (v) CIT Vs. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) (2013) 85 CCH 132 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs. Laresen & Toubro Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 502 (Bom) P a g e | 20 ITA No.5767/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Shah Rukh Khan (vii) DIT vs. Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw (2013) 218 Taxman 125 (Bom) (Mag) (viii) Sesa Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 219 Taxman 92 (Bom) (Mag) (ix) CIT Vs. Mansukh Dying & Printing Mills (2013) 219 Taxman 91 (Bom…

Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1091/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14A

…ired the assesse to explain as to why the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D should not be invoked. The assessee relying on the decisions of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs DCIT (328 ITR 81), Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT ( 347 ITR 272), CIT vs HDFC Bank (366 ITR 502), CIT vs Hero Cycles (323 ITR 518), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (351 ITR 359), Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33), CIT vs Om Prakash Khaitan (376 ITR 390) and CIT vs Holcim India Private Ltd. (ITA No. 486/2014 & ITA No. 299/2014) submitted that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D are not attracted in its case. However, the AO he…

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporaton, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22( 2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6617/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6617/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Earthmoving Equipment Deputy Commissioner Of Service Corporation Income Tax 613-614 22(2) बनाम/ Raikar Chambers Mumbai Vs. Kooverji Devshi Marg Govandi Mumbai – 400 088 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-1053-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. K.Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ld.Ars ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram & Ms. NeelamFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…from doing so only to buy peace of mind and avoid further litigation. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements for various contentions:- i) CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products [2010 322 ITR 158 Supreme Court] ii) CIT Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2014 366 ITR 502 Bombay High Court] iii) CIT Vs. Sonal Construction Co. [55 taxmnn.com 425 Gujarat High Court] iv) M.G.Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA Nos.7034 to 7038/Del/2014 19/09/2016 Delhi Tribunal] v) Anita Builders Vs. ACIT [2002 74 ITJ 364 Jodhpur Tribunal] 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental representative placed reliance on Section 292B to contend…