CIT v. Ansal Properties and Ind.Ltd.

352 ITR 637High Court2013#20698 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ansal Properties and Ind.Ltd.

M/S KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KHARKANE LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

ITA 1581/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 37

…) 245 ITR 428 (SC) (b) OIL & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 322 ITR 180(SC) (c) CIT Vs Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10 (Delhi) (d) CIT Vs Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd (2011) 336 ITR 374 (Delhi) (e) CIT Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.(2013 352 ITR 637 (Delhi) (f) Prakash Leasing Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT (2012) Contents of the decisions are discussed in succeeding para. 8.0 The facts narrated above it is implicitly clear that, no amount was credited in the ledger accounts of the consumers towards negative price variation except Rs.48,25,288/- and that also on the basis of notification issued on 15/07/…

SANJAY G VADODARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…(Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 362 (Del.), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 359 (Bom.), CIT vs Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 637 (Del.), supports the case of the assessee. Even otherwise, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), wherein, it was held that when two views are possible, which favour the assessee, has to be followed, further favours the case of the assessee. Further, it is not the case of the Departme…

KEDIA SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…(Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 362 (Del.), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 359 (Bom.), CIT vs Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 637 (Del.), supports the case of the assessee. Even otherwise, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), wherein, it was held that when two views are possible, which favour the assessee, has to be followed, further favours the case of the assessee. Further, it is not the case of the Departme…

M/S THE MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 565/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…veni Engineering & Industries Ltd. 336 ITR 0374 (2011) Delhi. HC g. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 (2000) SC h. CIT Vs Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. and others 354 ITR 180 (2013)-Delhi HC i. CIT Vs Ansal Properties and Ind.Ltd.352 ITR 637 (2000) DHC 5. The learned CIT brushing aside the explanation offered by the assessee company had held that provision of Rs.99,80,000/- is a contingent liability as it is not ascertainable and therefore, held that the claim is not admissible as deduction in computing the taxable income of the assessee company, exercising his power vested u/s 263…

CIT v. Ansal Properties and Ind.Ltd. (352 ITR 637) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax