CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303High Court1971#453 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd. authority for?

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd · 81 ITR 303 · taxability of service income · income for services rendered · CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955 · non-taxable income · services to Indian company · upholding tribunal findings · department appeal dismissed

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 10b(8)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 153(a)joint development agreementjdasection 131(1a)percentage completion methodsection 10bsection 158b

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…rishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…ri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…rishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…rishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…rishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction Reference in this regard may be made to p…

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

…before the taxing authorities is to assess the correct tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. reported in 81 ITR 303 (Del) and the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Technoforce Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1381/PUN/2023 order dated 10.01.2024 for assessment year 2015-16. 9 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and the decision of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any est…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any est…

MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM,MATHIKERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any est…

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any est…

DCIT, CC- 2(1), BLR, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…ed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO[1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any est…

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(2)Section 32

…hile holding so, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has relied\nupon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518\n: (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 237\n(Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303\n(Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142: (1982)\n136 ITR 355 (Bom)\n12. Thus, the Tribunal at Pune has not only considered the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Northern Karnataka\nExpressway Ltd, but has also considered the decision of the Coordinate\nBench at Mumbai in the case of West Gujarat Express…

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 928/JPR/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20\nSurya Singhal\n278, Dadabari Extension,\nKota.\nबनाम | The ACIT,\nVs.\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur.\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEJPS9077G\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A.\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenu…

MALL OF JAIPUR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

…April 11, 1955 of the CBDT and the order of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Madhabi Nag Bankura v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 512(Kol) of 2015, dated 9-12-2015] and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) 2.14v. This judgment also reiterates the spirit of the CBDT Circular 14-XL-55 dated 11.05.1955, that the Department must collect only lawful taxes, and not take technical advantage of a taxpayer’s ignorance. That the tax should be collected only to the extent to which a taxpayer is liable and Officer of the Department should assist the ta…

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 588/Chd/ 2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. C-V, Ludhiana Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 473/Chd/ 2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. बनाम The ACIT Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhia…

GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

…CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del) 3. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC) 5. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) (b) It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that the CIT(A) was bound to consider the claim on merits inter alia, for the following reasons: i) Firstly, for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18, the original regular assessment had merged with the 153A proceedings and therefore, the scope of 153A assessment included the issues that co…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3183/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 (Del)\n3. CIT vs. Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC)\n4. CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lad: 160 ITR 920 (SC)\n5. Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors 161 ITR 159 (SC)\n6. CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del)\n\n(b) It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that the\nCIT(A) was bound to consider the claim on merits inter alia,\nfor the following reasons:-\n\ni) Firstly, for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18,\nthe original regular assessment had merged with the 153A\nproceedings and therefore, the scope of 153A assessment\nincluded the iss…

Showing 1–20 of 202 · Page 1 of 11

...