CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

254 ITR 503High Court2002#900 most cited

What is CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. authority for?

A deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (or 80-IA) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-filing or delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB, as such procedural requirements can be treated as directory, and delays may be condoned.

118

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. · Section 80-IB deduction · Section 80-IA deduction · Form 10CCB · audit report filing · delayed audit report · non-filing audit report · condonation of delay · deduction claim validity

Also reported as

126 Taxmann 435

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ABSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80IA(7)Section 80IBSection 80IA

Issues it is cited on

section 80j(6a)section 80ia(7)section 80hhc(3)section 80ibsection 28(iv)section 115jacorporate guaranteeright to receivesection 80hhcdeduction u/s 80iasection 80hhsection 234d

Judgments citing CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…9-90. b) ITA No. 2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “ 17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee‟s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone fro…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7092/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…9-90. b) ITA No. 2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “ 17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee‟s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone fro…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. M/S Marathon India Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ao At The Time Of Assessment Proceedings With A Certificate That The Above Said Forms Had Been Ito Vs. M/S Marathon India Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 80I

…Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721(Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565(Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435(Cal.) 5 ITO vs. M/s Marathon India Ltd. has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue…

Viki Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 852/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacv2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 20.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, Is Wrong, Illegal & Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40A(3)

…expenditure, would not be justifiable ground for rejection. On the other hand, an expenditure satisfying the character as revenue expenditure should be allowed in assessment. The AR also relied on the case laws of CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. (No.2), 2002,254 ITR 503 Calcutta High Court where the decision of Apex Court of Kedarinath Jute Mills was followed. Similarly, the decision of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Amarraja Bateries Ltd. vs. ACIT, 2004, 91 ITD 280 Hyderabad ITAT wherein it was held that entries in the Books of accounts do not determine the allowability or otherwise expenditure and that revenue…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Segram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3811/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…oncern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court…

Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra,Adv.,Harpreet Singh, Adv., Anmol Anand, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR, B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…oncern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2770/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…oncern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2530/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…oncern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the jurisdictional High Court…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. 27 and 4374/Mum/2005 c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee‟s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone from…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. 27 and 4374/Mum/2005 c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee‟s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone from…

DCIT CC 1, Mumbai vs. Forever Precious Jewelery & Diamond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4295/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu&Shrisanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri G M Doss– CIT -DRFor Respondent: S/Shri F V Irani& Rajesh Shah
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 68

…oes not impair the appellant’s claim for deduction unless there are other material reasons on which such claim could be rejected. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 Abd the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727 6.14 Therefore, keeping in view the legal position as stated above I don’t find any reason to deviate from the findings of my ld. Predecessor in this regard. In the given circumstances, there is no ground under which the deduction claimed by the app…

DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai vs. Forever Precious Jewellry & Diamonds Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3783/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu&Shrisanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri G M Doss– CIT -DRFor Respondent: S/Shri F V Irani& Rajesh Shah
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 68

…oes not impair the appellant’s claim for deduction unless there are other material reasons on which such claim could be rejected. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 Abd the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727 6.14 Therefore, keeping in view the legal position as stated above I don’t find any reason to deviate from the findings of my ld. Predecessor in this regard. In the given circumstances, there is no ground under which the deduction claimed by the app…

DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai vs. Forever Precious Jewellery & Diamonds Latd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3776/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu&Shrisanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri G M Doss– CIT -DRFor Respondent: S/Shri F V Irani& Rajesh Shah
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 68

…oes not impair the appellant’s claim for deduction unless there are other material reasons on which such claim could be rejected. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 Abd the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727 6.14 Therefore, keeping in view the legal position as stated above I don’t find any reason to deviate from the findings of my ld. Predecessor in this regard. In the given circumstances, there is no ground under which the deduction claimed by the app…

DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai vs. Forever Precious Jewellery & Diamonds Latd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3775/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G S Pannu&Shrisanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri G M Doss– CIT -DRFor Respondent: S/Shri F V Irani& Rajesh Shah
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 68

…oes not impair the appellant’s claim for deduction unless there are other material reasons on which such claim could be rejected. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 Abd the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727 6.14 Therefore, keeping in view the legal position as stated above I don’t find any reason to deviate from the findings of my ld. Predecessor in this regard. In the given circumstances, there is no ground under which the deduction claimed by the app…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3) vs. Forever Precious Jewellery & Daimond Ltd

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1142/AHD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu&Shrisanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri G M Doss– CIT -DRFor Respondent: S/Shri F V Irani& Rajesh Shah
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 68

…oes not impair the appellant’s claim for deduction unless there are other material reasons on which such claim could be rejected. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 254 ITR 503 Abd the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727 6.14 Therefore, keeping in view the legal position as stated above I don’t find any reason to deviate from the findings of my ld. Predecessor in this regard. In the given circumstances, there is no ground under which the deduction claimed by the app…

ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Gkw Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 432/KOL/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :1998-99 Ito Ward-1(3), Room V/S. M/S Gkw Ltd., Central No. 1A, 4Th Floor, Plaza, 2/6 Sarat Bose Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Road, Office Space No. Chowringhee Suquare, 406, 4Thfloor, Kolkata-20 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No. Aabcg 0671 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…herefore the provision of Sec.145A of the Act are not applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration. In this connection, we are relying in the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal) the head-note reads as under:- “Accounts—Valuation of stock—Modvat credit—Amount representing Modvat credit is not to be added in the valuation of stock—Sec. 145A is not retrospective in nature—Collector of Central Excise vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 172 : 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC) applied Respectfully following the judgme…

The DCIT 3(1) vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd

ITA 2654/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

…ear 1989-90 b) ITA No.2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91 c) Empire Jute co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT vs. Ananda Bazar Patnika (P) Ltd. 91990) 184 ITR 542 (cal) e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal) Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No.2690/M/93 held as under:- “17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee’s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone for…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG3(1)

ITA 2524/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

…ear 1989-90 b) ITA No.2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91 c) Empire Jute co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT vs. Ananda Bazar Patnika (P) Ltd. 91990) 184 ITR 542 (cal) e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal) Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No.2690/M/93 held as under:- “17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee’s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone for…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Finance Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 6673/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. R.M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6673/Del/2013 A.Y. : 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner of Income vs. M/s Escorts Finance Ltd., Tax, Circle 11(1), 15/5, Mathura Road, Room No. 405, Faridabad – 121 003 CR Bldg., PAN : AAACE0763B) New Delhi (Appellant ) (Respondent ) Department by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. R.M. Mehta, Adv. Date of hearing : 25/05/2016 Date of Order : 02/06/2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissione…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1999-2000 Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Dcit Range 3(1), 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacg0569P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Dcit Range 3(1), Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacg0569P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar
Section 115JSection 145ASection 244A

…9-90. b) ITA No. 2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is a fact that assessee’s business had started during the preceding year and it had already started extracting limestone from…