CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.

377 ITR 483High Court2015#11592 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysiscorporate guaranteeright to receive

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.

Addlcit, New Delhi vs. M/S Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5166/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

…ance offered by the assessee of rupees to lakhs u/s 14 A of the act, AO should be directed to delete the above addition also. For this proposition assessee has relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of HCL technologies versus ACIT 377 ITR 483. AR has also relied upon several other judicial precedents to support the claim of the assessee that where it has been held that an assessee cannot be stopped from taking a different stand where the income was first returned Under an erroneous impression of law. In the case of HCL technologies (supra) it was a case of claiming extended deduction…

Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5147/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

…ance offered by the assessee of rupees to lakhs u/s 14 A of the act, AO should be directed to delete the above addition also. For this proposition assessee has relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of HCL technologies versus ACIT 377 ITR 483. AR has also relied upon several other judicial precedents to support the claim of the assessee that where it has been held that an assessee cannot be stopped from taking a different stand where the income was first returned Under an erroneous impression of law. In the case of HCL technologies (supra) it was a case of claiming extended deduction…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…nst the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger P…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…nst the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger P…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…nst the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger P…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…nst the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherwise entitled in law (No estoppel in law):- i) CIT v. Shelly Products: 261 ITR 367 (SC); ii) CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del.); iii) HCL Technologies vs ACIT : 377 ITR 483 (Del); iv) CTI vs C. Parakh & Co (India) Ltd: 29 ITR 661 (SC); v) CIT vs VMRP Firm: 56 ITR 67 (SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger P…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of Gulf Piping Company, Wll, Abu Dhabi, Uae, Dehradun vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1330/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2011-12] & [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Ongc Ltd [As Representative Assessee Vs. The D.C.I.T Of Gulf Piping Co. Wll, Abu Dhabi, Uae International Taxation C/O Ongc Ltd, Corporate Tax Division Circle - Ii Tel Bhawan, Dehradun Dehradun Pan : Aaaco 1598 A [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)

…nnot be held against the assessee as there is no estoppel in law. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat General Re-insurance Co. ltd 81 ITR 303[ Del] and HCL Technologies Vs. ACIT 377 ITR 483 [DEL]. 8. Moreover, the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Enron Espat Services Inv. 327 ITR 626 has categorically held that if the receipt by a non-resident is exempt from tax under the relevant DTAA, the said amount cannot be brought to tax u/s 44BB of the Act. 9. Considering the facts of the case in totality in the light of…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1811/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1811/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT

…liance on the judgment of Apex Court in Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. ITO (1959) 36 ITR 350, judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. (2010) 327 ITR 626 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in HCL Technologies v. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 483. The Ld.counsel has also submitted that the amalgamation was with effect from 31.12.2009. The assessee acquired the brand before the amalgamation. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it cannot be said that it is a colourable device for acquisition of 5 I.T.A. No.1811/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1491/Mds/15 intangible asset, namely, the brand “Ishta…

Emerald Jewel Industry India Limited, Coimbatore vs. Addl. CIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1491/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1811/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT

…liance on the judgment of Apex Court in Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. ITO (1959) 36 ITR 350, judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. (2010) 327 ITR 626 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in HCL Technologies v. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 483. The Ld.counsel has also submitted that the amalgamation was with effect from 31.12.2009. The assessee acquired the brand before the amalgamation. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it cannot be said that it is a colourable device for acquisition of 5 I.T.A. No.1811/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1491/Mds/15 intangible asset, namely, the brand “Ishta…

CIT v. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd. (377 ITR 483) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax