CIT v. Avinash Jain

236 CTR 1High Court2010#11156 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

22 Taxmann.com 151

Issues it is cited on

section 35(1)weighted deduction section 35(2ab)section 35 section 40(a)(i)section 36(1)(iii)section 32 capital expenditure section 36(1)section 43 section 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. Avinash Jain

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…Ltd. : 365 ITR 452 (Del) (Supreme Court has dismissed the Department’s SLP vide CC 17946/2014 : 229 Taxman 496)  CIT v. Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd: 337 ITR 264 (Del.)  CIT v. Avinash Jain : 362 ITR 441 (Del)  CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del)  CIT v. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.)  Pace Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2000-01 in ITA No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.S. Investment Pvt. Ltd.: 277 ITR 149 (Mad)  Arjun Kapur vs. DCIT: 70 ITD 161 (Del.)  Slocum Invest…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher Limited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del.); CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom.); and CIT vs. PNB Finance and Industries Limited, 236 CTR 1 (Del.).…

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…ent assessment year is same, therefore, the dispute raised by the revenue is entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect. ii) Assessee is also relying upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR 1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court did not interfere in the matter as the entire exercise was a revenue neutral exercise. I) When principal amount itself is overdue, recovery of LPSC is uncertain Pragati Power Corporation vs. ACIT As analyzed in detail above, in the instant case, collection of LPSC is clouded in uncertainty and accordingly, the same is re…

CYGNUS VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…td., 329 ITR 289(Del.); (x) CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (De!.); (xi) CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); (xii) CIT Vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del); (xiii)CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582(Bom.); (xiv) CIT Vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd, 236 CTR 1 (Delhi)”. 9. Per contra, ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of the ld. PCIT and the decisions relied therein. It is also contended that the Assessing Officer should have increased the scope of inquiry so as to examine the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transactions. 10. We have hea…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI FINANCE, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 6064/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Shri Finance Circle-31(1) 4, Scindia House Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aacfs9120K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri K. Tiwari, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri U.N.Marwah, Ca Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018

For Appellant: Shri U.N.Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT Shri Finance Circle-31(1) 4, Scindia House Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AACFS9120K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri K. Tiwari, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri U.N.Marwah, CA Date of hearing : 25.07.2018 Date of pronouncement : 23.10.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the department against order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5029/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09 Dy.Cit Vs. M/S Divya Shakti Trading Services Ltd. Circle 10(1) (Now M/S Indiabulls Advisory Services Ltd.) New Delhi F 60, 2Nd Floor, Malhotra Building Cannaught Place New Delhi Pan: Aaccd4953E A.Y. 2008-09 M/S Divya Shakti Trading Services Dy.Cit Ltd. Vs. Circle 10(1) (Now M/S Indiabulls Advisory New Delhi Services Ltd.) New Delhi Pan: Aaccd4953E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…that these separately have been provided under: 13 and 14. Placing reliance upon; • decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Jain vs. CIT reported in 294 ITR 435; • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vinay Mittal reported in 22 Taxmann.com 151; • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohit Anand reported in 327 ITR 445 ; • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jubilate Securities Pvt. Ltd,, reported in 333 ITR 445 ; he submitted that there was no restriction on assessee to hold 2 portfolios in so far as shares were concerned. He submit…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6062/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

…e by him in the order, finding and reasons given by the CIT (A) in the appellant’s own case for assessment year 2008 – 09 and following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Avinash Jain 30 Taxmann.com 133, CIT versus vinay Mittal 22 Taxmann.com 151 and CIT versus Asok Wadia 45 Taxmann.com 182. Therefore, revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) has preferred appeal before us. 10. The Ld. DR vehemently y contested the order of the Ld assessing officer and submitted that the Ld. CIT appeal has incorrectly allowed the claim of the assessee. He submitted a written note wherein…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6063/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…stments Pvt. Ltd.[2014]: SLP(C) No. 30606 of 2014 (SC) iv. CIT v. Rohit Anand: 327 ITR 445 (Del.) v. CIT v Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Delhi) vi. CIT v. Avinash Jain : 214 Taxman 260 (Del) vii. CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del) viii. CIT V. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del.) (SLP Dismissed) x. CIT v. Suresh R. Shah: ITA No. 1974/2011 (Bom.)(HC) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2…