CIT v. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd.

205 ITR 353High Court1994#5812 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)non-compete feesection 28(i)section 28(iv)section 43(1)commercial rightsfull value of considerationright to receivelack of enquirysection 48section 40(a)(i)section 45

Judgments citing CIT v. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd.

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 757/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…ary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.” 6.1 That,…

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 756/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…ary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.” 6.1 That,…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…ary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.” 6.1 That,…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, , PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…ary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.” 6.1 That,…

AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court). (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court). (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court). (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat). (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC). 15. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. 16. In t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court). (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court). (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court). (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat). (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC). 15. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. 16. In t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. HALDEX INDIA PVT.LTD,, NASHIK

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

ITA 852/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.852/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik Vs. Haldex India Pvt. Ltd., B-71, Midc, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabch9044B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar & Shri Viksit Bhargava Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik Dated 01.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Nashik Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,58,41,000/- Made U/S 28(Iv) Of The Act On Account Of Octroi Refund Treating It Revenue In Nature. 02. The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer May Be Restored. 03. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Onkar &For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 28

…he monetary benefits received by the respondent-assessee placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court). (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court). (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court). (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat). (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC). 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Sr. DR contended that the since the respondent- assessee had received octroi refund, t…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…its received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisions of section 28(i) and 28(iv) are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the cr…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…its received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisions of section 28(i) and 28(iv) are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the cr…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…its received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisions of section 28(i) and 28(iv) are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the cr…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…its received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisions of section 28(i) and 28(iv) are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the cr…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…its received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisions of section 28(i) and 28(iv) are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the cr…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…t or perquisite are received in kind. This section does not apply to the benefits in cash or money and it applies only to a transaction arising from business and this view has also been supported by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh vs. CIT (205 ITR 353) and Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). Section 28(iv) provides for chargeability of profits and gains or business or profession with relation to the value of any benefit or perquisite arising out of 84 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 business or the exercise of profession and therefore, the same would not include the money transact…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…t or perquisite are received in kind. This section does not apply to the benefits in cash or money and it applies only to a transaction arising from business and this view has also been supported by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh vs. CIT (205 ITR 353) and Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). Section 28(iv) provides for chargeability of profits and gains or business or profession with relation to the value of any benefit or perquisite arising out of 84 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 business or the exercise of profession and therefore, the same would not include the money transact…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…t or perquisite are received in kind. This section does not apply to the benefits in cash or money and it applies only to a transaction arising from business and this view has also been supported by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh vs. CIT (205 ITR 353) and Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). Section 28(iv) provides for chargeability of profits and gains or business or profession with relation to the value of any benefit or perquisite arising out of 84 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 business or the exercise of profession and therefore, the same would not include the money transact…

MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2392/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

…mal course of business. In defence of his arguments the ld.AR relied upon the following case law: i) CIT V/s Alchemic Pvt Ltd reported in 130 ITR 168 (Guj); ii) Iskraemeco Regent Ltd (196 Taxman 103) (Mad High Court); iii) Ravinder Singh and Amptjer V/s CIT (205 ITR 353) (Delhi High Court); iv) ITO V/s Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd (109) ITD 71 (Mum)(TM). The ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act provides for the assessment of the value of any benefit or perquisite arising from the business or the exercise of a profession as income of the assessee and these provisions do not deal wi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 6204/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(24)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH:‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No. 6204/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) ACIT, vs Anil Kumar Sharma, Central Circle-7, B3, AGCR Enclave, New Delhi. New Karkardooma, New Delhi. AUTPS1076K & Cross Objection No. 230/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) Anil Kumar Sharma, vs ACIT, B3, AGCR Enclave, Central Circle-7, New Karkardooma, New Delhi. New Delhi. AUTPS1076K Appellant by Shri Amrit Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Jain, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 27.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.…

LOGITRONICS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

ITA/1623/2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 2(24)Section 41(1)

…pleased to hold that Section 28(iv) does not apply to the benefits in cash or money and it applies only to a transaction arising from business. The said view was also taken by the High Court of Delhi in Ravinder Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1994) 205 ITR 353 wherein, the earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alchemic pvt. Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 168 was quoted with approval, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein: “So far as the question of s.28(iv) of the Act is concerned, s.28(iv) provides that income falling under cl.(iv) of s.28 shall be chargeable to income-tax under the h…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASIAN HOTEL LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 794 / 2007HC Delhi10 Dec 2007
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 28

…the AO and held that since the interest free deposit would automatically result in an increase in the profits, ![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg) Hotels Limited 53 ITR 450 as well as the decision of this Court in Ravind. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 205 ITR 353 and upheld the order of the CIT(A). - 5. As regards the Assessment Year 1995-96, the CIT(A) concurred with the AO but the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and reversed the decision of the CIT(A) relying upon its order in the case of the Assessee itself for the Assessment Year 2000-01. - 6. Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned Senior Standing cou…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. ASIAN HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 998 / 2007HC Delhi10 Dec 2007
Section 22Section 28

…", New Delhi in ITA No. 1266(Del.)/2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-01. ITA No. 998 of 2007 is an appeal by the ![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg) Hotels Limited 53 ITR 450 as well as the decision of this Court in Ravind Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 205 ITR 353 and upheld the order of the CIT(A). 5. As regards the Assessment Year 1995-96, the CIT(A) concurred with the AO but the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and reversed the decision of the CIT(A) relying upon its order in the case of the Assessee itself for the Assessment Year 2000-01. ₹ - 6. Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned Senior Standing c…