CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Assn. Pr. Ltd.

99 ITR 567High Court1975#11097 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Assn. Pr. Ltd.

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2442/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (Cal) 12. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 18 (P&H) 13. Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj) 14. Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 209 (Mumbai-Trib) 15. CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [19601 38 ITR 601 (SC) 16. Sree Meenaks…

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2444/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (Cal) 12. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 18 (P&H) 13. Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj) 14. Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 209 (Mumbai-Trib) 15. CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [19601 38 ITR 601 (SC) 16. Sree Meenaks…

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2443/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (Cal) 12. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 18 (P&H) 13. Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj) 14. Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 209 (Mumbai-Trib) 15. CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [19601 38 ITR 601 (SC) 16. Sree Meenaks…

M/S MAJESTIC INFRACON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3711/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3710 & 3711/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Majestic Infracon ACIT 12(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.147B, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, D.B. House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. General A.K. Vaidya M.K. Road, Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 PAN: AAACT4160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022…

M/S MAJESTIC INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3710/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3710 & 3711/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Majestic Infracon ACIT 12(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.147B, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, D.B. House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. General A.K. Vaidya M.K. Road, Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 PAN: AAACT4160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022…

DCIT 6(2), MUMBAI vs. E BAY INDIA P LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7098/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-2008 The Dcit-6 (2), M/S. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 563, 202, B-Wing, Phoenix House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Churchgate, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 13 Pan: Aabcb2307H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 37/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 M/S. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit- Circle 6(2), 14Th Floor, North Block, Room No. 563, R-Tech Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Western Express Highway, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aabcb2307H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: S.K. Mishra (DR)
Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…ITR 557) (Bombay High Court) 3. National Rayon Corporation (155 ITR 413) (Bombay High Court) 4. J N Singh & Company Private Limited (60 ITR 732) (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 5. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stockholders Association Private Limited (99 ITR 567) (Gujarat High Court). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the parties. The only grievance of the department is that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 91,27,129/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of claim made by the assessee towards legal…

VAAYA RENEWABLE ENERGY (PURNA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)`, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…ully utilising it for import were held not allowable although the partner was ultimately acquitted [CIT v. Chaman Lal & Bra .(1970) 77 ITR 383 (Delhi)]. This case was, however, distinguished in CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Assn. Pr. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 567 (Guj), where expenses incurred by company in defending its managing director were held allowable. In order to so claim such expenditure the assessee has not only to prove that the expenditure was incidental to the business but also to show that the expenditure was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business [Inderm…

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…ully utilising it for import were held not allowable although the partner was utlimately acquitted [CIT v. Chaman Lal & Bra .(1970) 77 ITR 383 (Delhi)]. This case was, however, distinguished in CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Assn. Pr. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 567 (Guj), where expenses incurred by company in defending its managing director were held allowable. In order to so 12 Hiranandani Akruti JV claim such expenditure the assessee has not only to prove that the expenditure was incidental to the business but also to show that the expenditure was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the pur…

DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…fully utilising it for import were held not allowable although the partner was utlimately acquitted [CIT v. Chaman Lal & Bra .(1970) 77 ITR 383 (Delhi)]. This case was, however, distinguished in CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Assn. Pr. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 567 (Guj), where expenses incurred by company in defending its managing director were held allowable. In order to make such claim / such expenditure the assessee has not only to prove that the expenditure was incidental to the business but also to show that the expenditure was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business…

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…fully utilising it for import were held not allowable although the partner was utlimately acquitted [CIT v. Chaman Lal & Bra .(1970) 77 ITR 383 (Delhi)]. This case was, however, distinguished in CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Assn. Pr. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 567 (Guj), where 13 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia expenses incurred by company in defending its managing director were held allowable. In order to so claim such expenditure the assessee has not only to prove that the expenditure was incidental to the business but also to show that the expenditure was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for th…