CIT v. Airlines Hotel Private Limited

346 ITR 33High Court2012#15726 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 115osection 271hopening wdvdepreciation on goodwilldisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)prohibited by lawddtdomestic companydividend distribution taxsection 192written down value

Judgments citing CIT v. Airlines Hotel Private Limited

THE ACIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1777/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

…e a direct Nexus with the business of the assessee and thereby constitutes expenditure incurred out of commercial expediency. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Airlines Hotel Private Limited 346 ITR 33 ( Bom) wherein it was held that legal payment incurred for settling on resolving dispute to be allowed as business expenditure. Accordingly ITA No. 3694 & 3736/Mum/2019 & ITA No. 1620 & 1777/Mum/2020 A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S PFIZER LTD the claim of the assessee that the lower authorities have incorrectly disallowed the above expenditure. 035. Th…

PFIZER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1620/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

…e a direct Nexus with the business of the assessee and thereby constitutes expenditure incurred out of commercial expediency. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Airlines Hotel Private Limited 346 ITR 33 ( Bom) wherein it was held that legal payment incurred for settling on resolving dispute to be allowed as business expenditure. Accordingly ITA No. 3694 & 3736/Mum/2019 & ITA No. 1620 & 1777/Mum/2020 A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S PFIZER LTD the claim of the assessee that the lower authorities have incorrectly disallowed the above expenditure. 035. Th…

PFIZER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3736/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

…e a direct Nexus with the business of the assessee and thereby constitutes expenditure incurred out of commercial expediency. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Airlines Hotel Private Limited 346 ITR 33 ( Bom) wherein it was held that legal payment incurred for settling on resolving dispute to be allowed as business expenditure. Accordingly ITA No. 3694 & 3736/Mum/2019 & ITA No. 1620 & 1777/Mum/2020 A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S PFIZER LTD the claim of the assessee that the lower authorities have incorrectly disallowed the above expenditure. 035. Th…

DCIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3694/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

…e a direct Nexus with the business of the assessee and thereby constitutes expenditure incurred out of commercial expediency. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Airlines Hotel Private Limited 346 ITR 33 ( Bom) wherein it was held that legal payment incurred for settling on resolving dispute to be allowed as business expenditure. Accordingly ITA No. 3694 & 3736/Mum/2019 & ITA No. 1620 & 1777/Mum/2020 A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S PFIZER LTD the claim of the assessee that the lower authorities have incorrectly disallowed the above expenditure. 035. Th…

ACIT 1 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S CYRUS INVESTMENT PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 111/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. Dalmia Jain & Co Ltd vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) 3. CIT vs O.P.N. Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer, learned departmental representative submitted, the subject properties were never in the posses…

CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT RG. 1 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 7853/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. Dalmia Jain & Co Ltd vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) 3. CIT vs O.P.N. Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer, learned departmental representative submitted, the subject properties were never in the posses…

CIT v. Airlines Hotel Private Limited (346 ITR 33) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax