CIT, Delhi-IV v. Denso Haryana (P) Ltd.

328 ITR 14High Court2010#15632 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 269STSection 271AAC

Judgments citing CIT, Delhi-IV v. Denso Haryana (P) Ltd.

Gurdas Mal Arora, Kanpur vs. The A O Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

…lied. The action of the A.O should be based on well founded reason the assessee Page 31 of 35 also relied upon CIT vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in 303 ITR 271, CIT vs. Forbes Tea Brokers reported in 315 ITR 404 and CIT vs. Denso Haryana (P.) Ltd. Reported in 328 ITR 14. In the case of Coronation Flour Mills vs. ACIT reported in 314 ITR 1 it is held that A.O. has to record it is finding as to whether the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable on the basis of three basic requirement/section (like a fair market price of the goods, services for which the payment is made, legitimate need of business and benefit der…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7175/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…but rather, it was obligatory on the part of the revenue to arrive at any such inference on the basis of a feasible comparison and not otherwise, relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT, Delhi-IV Vs. Denso Haryana (P) Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 14 (Del). The ld. A.R further in support of his contention that payments made by an assessee to its related parties could not be summarily dislodged without proving that such payments were not for the bonafide reasons, took support of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-1, Lucknow Vs. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Company…

Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7142/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…but rather, it was obligatory on the part of the revenue to arrive at any such inference on the basis of a feasible comparison and not otherwise, relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT, Delhi-IV Vs. Denso Haryana (P) Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 14 (Del). The ld. A.R further in support of his contention that payments made by an assessee to its related parties could not be summarily dislodged without proving that such payments were not for the bonafide reasons, took support of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-1, Lucknow Vs. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Company…

Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 4011/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 4011 & 5070/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Room No. 622, Private Limited, G.D. Ambedkar Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, बिधम/ Marg, Naigaum Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Vs. Bombay- 400014. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacn5119J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralashwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…but rather, it was obligatory on the part of the revenue to arrive at any such inference on the basis of a feasible comparison and not otherwise, relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT, Delhi-IV Vs. Denso Haryana (P) Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 14 (Del). The ld. A.R further in support of his contention that payments made by an assessee to its related parties could not be summarily dislodged without proving that such payments were not for the bonafide reasons, took support of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-1, Lucknow Vs. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Company…

ITO, WD-33(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Spml - Hcil Jv, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 634/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80

…inds strength from the following: ‘(i) The ITAT (Bangalore) in case of S.K. Engineering v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.) – discussed in Para 4.3(i) above. (ii) The Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd. [328 ITR 14] held that “the Assessing Officer was required to compare the price which prevailed in the local market in the same year. It was a pure finding of fact recorded by the two appellate authorities and, therefore, no question of law arose.” 6.1 As already clarified above, disallowance u/s. 40A(2) can be made only if the payment made to the sister con…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…Ltd vs ACIT reported in 272 ITR (AT) 47 (c) Decision of Hon’ble Madhyapradesh High Court in the case of ICT vs Udhoji Shrikrishnadas reported in 139 ITR 827 (MP) (d) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Denso Haryana Pvt Ltd reported in 328 ITR 14 (Del) 3.3. In response to this, the ld DR merely argued that the details called for by the ld AO in tabular form were not fully complied with by the assessee and hence the disallowance had been rightly made by the ld AO. 4 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 3.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on recor…

CIT, Delhi-IV v. Denso Haryana (P) Ltd. (328 ITR 14) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax