How many judgments cite Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT (278 ITR 546), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 194H, Section 271(1)(c), Section 32(1), Section 35ABB.

Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT

278 ITR 546Supreme Court of India2005#4072 most cited

What is Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Statutory interpretation requires adhering to the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature to discern legislative intent, especially when the meaning is unambiguous.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT · statutory interpretation · legislative intent · plain meaning · unambiguous words · Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 194H Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 35ABB Section 40(a)(ia)Section 45

Issues it is cited on

section 263 section 26 income from other sources section 27 appeal before the tribunal transfer prescribed opportunity of being heard person company section 143(3)india

Judgments citing Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ional basis of any interpretation, is 0 be found from the words used by the Legislature itself. The principle is in fact well settled and trite (refer Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002} 255 ITR 147 (SC); and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [20051 278 ITR 546/148 Taxman 468 (Se). As explained in Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (supra) (pg.17), the consequences cannot alter the meaning of a statutory provision where such meaning is plain and unambiguous, though could certainly help to fix its meaning in case of doubt and ambiguity. The amendment/s under reference, as explained in the Finance Min…

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved; Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Date

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 32(1)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known as Vodafone India Limited which stands merged with Idea Cellular Limited and consequently known as Vodafone Idea Limited) 10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030, Maharashtra [PAN:AAACB2100P - Vodafone Idea Ltd.] (PAN:AAACH5332B - Erstwhile Vodafone India Ltd) ……. Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Circle 5(3)(2) Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra …………. Respondent Appe…

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6671/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Date

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 40

…is decision has also been followed by the ITAT in the case of Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd.(ITA No. 3567/Mum/2016 and 4392/M/2017). 31. With regard to reliance of the ld. DR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Britania Industries Ltd.(278 ITR 546), we observe that the question before the Supreme Court in the said 1 Vodafone India Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ITA No.6671-Mum-2017 A.Y.2013-14 case was whether expenses towards rent, repairs, depreciation and maintenance of a building used as a guest house, was to be governed by the provisions of section 30 to 36 of the…

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…an organic, living document, which is therefore to be read meaningfully and purposively. The entire exercise of interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent; the statute being an edict of the Legislature [Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC); CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)]. As explained in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), the court shall give an interpretation which shall serve the legislative object and intention, rather than subvert it. In Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Court reminded that statutes s…

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…n its proper perspective and if it is followed the addition is not sustainable. The assessee on this count relied upon several judgments including the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (2005) 278 ITR 546. It is also a fact that taxing statute is to be construed strictly. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read or nothing is to be implied. We have carefully considered the judgment ITA No.281/Ind/2018 (ACIT vs. M/s. Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.–2014-15 - 25 - passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Cor…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…on of the statute, when a language of statute is clear of unambiguous, the courts are to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the provisions of the statute as held in Britania Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 278 ITR 546 at 547 (SC). It is also well-settled principle of law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a 52 stipulated condition which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intention. While interpreting a provision the cour…

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ern the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of all interpretative exercise (PadmasundaraRao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC);Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC)). If not in the language in which the law is couched, where is the legislative intent to be found, so that where the law is clear, ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT as it indeed is in the instant case, no other rule of interpretation is required (Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR…

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of all interpretative exercise (Padmasundara Rao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC)). If not in the language in which the law is couched, where is the legislative intent to be found, so that where the 11 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT law is clear, as it indeed is in the instant case, no other rule of interpretation is required (Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 3…

RFS INDIA TELECOM PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2040/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Rfs India Telecom Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd. Circle – 21(1), E-8/1, Lower Ground Floor New Delhi Near Geeta Bhawan Mandir, Malviya Nagar Pan No. Aadcr 5389 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/11/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/ 144C/ 92Ca(4) Of The Act, 1961, Pursuant To The Directions Given By The Drp, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.12.2016 Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. Rfs India Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit A.Y. 2012-13 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…rnational transactions of resale of the goods, the same should be applied in preference over the other methods and in support of aforesaid contentions he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 278 ITR 546 and in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs CCIT reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 58 (SC). He further submitted that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in its Guidance note on Report under Section 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, also RFS India Telecom Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 10 states that RPM method sh…

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

…ed to suggest that the expenses pertain to transit accommodation and mess located in remote areas where the benefit of hotel was unavailable. Thus, the CIT(A) followed the Apex Court decision in case of Britannia India ITA No.4710-Del-2010 Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC) and upheld the addition. After hearing both the parties it can be seen that the CIT(A) was rightly confirmed this addition as there was no evidence shown by the assessee at the time of the assessment proceedings as well as at the time of the Appellate proceedings. Before us as well the assessee could not demonstrate the same. Therefore, Grou…

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…provisions of Section 35ABA is inserted to the Act w.e.f. A.Y. 2017-18 and hence from A.Y. 2017-18 onwards only Section 35ABB would not be applicable to Spectrum payments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Britania Industries Ltd. reported in 278 ITR 546 while dealing with specific provisions dealing with Guest House expenditure would have to be applied instead of the general provisions in Section30, 31 and 32. 18. Further arguing Spectrum Fees, the ld. DR argued that the assessee is confusing spectrum fees for grant Telecommunication License. Spectrum ITA 3327/MUM/2018 Vodafone India Limited v…

TOPCON SOKKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 8110/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Topcon Sokkia India Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd., Unit No.101 To 106A, Circle- 25 (2) Abw Tower, 1St Floor, New Delhi Mg Road, Iffco Chowk, Sector-25, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 Pan No. Aaccs 9107 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Ramit Katyal, C.A. Respondent By Sh. M. Barhwal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 25(2) New Delhi Pursuant To The Directions Of Drp, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…saction of resale of the goods, the same needs to be applied in preference over the other methods and and in support of his aforesaid contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. reported in 278 ITR 546 (SC) and in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. CCIT reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com 58 (SC). He further submitted the guidance note issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India also mandates the application of RPM method where the reseller does not add any significant value to the product. 10. He thereafter subm…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1466/CHNY/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 35

…g to Rs. 15,54,132/- relying upon the order his predecessors in assessee’s own case for the asst. year 2001- 02. 17. This issue is covered against the assessee in decision of the apex court rendered in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT and Another( 278 ITR 546) (Supreme Court) . Respectfully following the same, we allow the this ground of appeal by the revenue.” The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of the tribunal in assessee’s own case for ay: 2002-03 and prayed for upholding disallowance of these expenses. The learned counsel for assessee submitted that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT. SPL. RG. 27, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7891/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 90(2)

…` 6,78,011, on account of Guest House expenses. 24. At the outset, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue has to be decided against the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, 278 ITR 546 (SC). 25. The learned Departmental Representative agreed with the aforesaid submission of learned Sr. counsel. 26. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is observed, while the Assessing Officer has disallowed the guest house expenses by invoking the provision of section 37(4) of the Act, learned Commissioner (A…

FINOLEX CABLES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 368/PUN/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2018AY 1997-98

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

For Appellant: Shri J.G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Gautam

Section 2Section 80I

…s Rs.47,426/- ---------------- Total Rs.91,197/- Total (A) & (B) Rs.9.40,919/- The ld. AR fairly admitted that in the light of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 278 ITR 546, the expenditure claimed in respect of items a), b) and c) are not allowable. In so far as the expenditure on telephone, electricity and other expenses are concerned the same may be allowed as these expenditures were not subject matter of dispute in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(supra). 3.2 In respect of gr…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODIPON LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5757/DEL/2014[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2017AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 1984-85 The Ito Vs. Modipon Ltd. Ward 5(4) Hapur Road New Delhi Opp. Nagar Palika Modinagar 201 204 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaacm 2069 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P.Damkanunjna, Sr.D.R. Respondent By Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 11.12.2017 Date Of 13.12.2017 Pronouncement Order Per Beena A Pillaithe Present Penalty Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 27/08/14 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-8, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1984-85 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.20,72,130/- Imposed By The Ao On Account Of Addition Made U/S 37(4) & 40A(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act)?

Section 143Section 256(1)Section 30Section 37Section 37(4)Section 43

…’ble High Court vide order dated 10/08/07 in ITA No. 40 of 1996 answered question No. 2 and 3 in negative in favour of revenue in view of the decision passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd vs. CIT and Anr., reported in (2005) 278 ITR 546. ITA No.5757/Del/14, Assessment Year 1984-85 ITO vs. Modipon Ltd. 2.2. Subsequent to passing of the order by Hon’ble High Court, this Tribunal vide order dated 10/08/13 modified its order dated 30/06/94. 2.3. Against order dated 10/08/13, Department initiated penalty proceedings. The penalty order was passed on 27.05.2014, levying penalty of Rs.2…

ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)4, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

…unsels appearing for both the parties have submitted before us that the issue has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years as well as by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, 278 ITR 546 (SC). Notably, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1995–96, in ITA no.157/Mum./1999 dated 30th September 2004, the Tribunal has upheld the disallowance of depreciation on guest house. Respectfully following the aforesaid 42 M/s. Parle Products Ltd. decision of the Co–ordinate Bench we uphold the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer…

SBI CAPITALMARKETS LTD vs. DCIT SP. RG 27,

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 294/MUM/1999[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 1994-95

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri BCS Naik-CIT-DR & Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 254(1)

…nds No.2 and 3 stand decided against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal for 1380/M/99;1055/M/99,1127/M/96;4959/M/97;294/Mum/19-SBI Capital Markets Ltd. the AY.1991-92 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. (278 ITR 546). Therefore,we decide both the grounds against the assessee. 3.First Effective Ground of appeal (GOA-1) is about disallowance of depreciation of Rs.13. 68 lakhs and Rs.11.19 lakhs in respect of plant and machinery leased out to M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd.(IIL)and M/s. Foremost Industries India Ltd. (FIIL),respectively. It was brought to our noti…

M/S. TATA CHEMICAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT RG. 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5897/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas and Shri Atul T SuraiyaFor Respondent: Mrs Vidisha Kalra

Section 35E

…d served at the guest house. Coming to other expenses incurred on guest house i.e. salaries, repairs, society charges and maintenance expenses, the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia India Industries Vs. CIT [278 ITR 546] decided in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold these disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. This ground is partly allowed. 5. Ground No.4 relates to disallowance of payment to Fort Medical Society. The issue is covered in favour of the Assessee by the order of the Tribunal in…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2