CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

81 ITR 303High Court1971#456 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 367,154 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.

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…SC) (b) CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipul P. Dalal Vs. DCIT - 12(2) 2016-LL-0603-1]- ITAT Mumbai (j) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120 / 2005- TIOL-49-ITAT-PUNE (k) Raghavan Nair [2018] 89 taxmann.com 212 (Kerala) 11. Thus, he submitted that e…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…SC) (b) CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipul P. Dalal Vs. DCIT - 12(2) 2016-LL-0603-1]- ITAT Mumbai (j) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120 / 2005- TIOL-49-ITAT-PUNE (k) Raghavan Nair [2018] 89 taxmann.com 212 (Kerala) 11. Thus, he submitted that e…

Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.360/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, O-2, Office Floor, S Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Madhulika Apartments, Bhatar Road, . Surat [Pan: Aaack 9924 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

…Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs.ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat/ITA No.360/SRT/2017 /A.Y.2012-13 Page 1 of 4 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.360/SRT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Kshitij Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, O-2, Office Floor, s Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Madhulika Apartments, Bhatar Road, . Surat [PAN: AAACK 9924 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – C…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai International Airport Vs. DCIT,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1st Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 PAN/GIR No.AAECM6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & DCIT-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1st Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airp…

Naresh J. Kotak, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4635/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/Mum/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2006-2007 To 2009-10) Shri Naresh J. Kotak, D.C.I.T., C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs. Central Circle-6(4), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, (Formerly A.C.I.T., Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Central Circle 39) Mumbai-400001. Mumbai.

For Respondent: Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 4635-4637 & 4641/MUM/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2006-2007 to 2009-10) Shri Naresh J. Kotak, D.C.I.T., C/o. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Vs. Central Circle-6(4), Esplanade House, 2nd Floor, 29, (formerly A.C.I.T., Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Central Circle 39) Mumbai-400001. Mumbai. PAN: AADPK7084K (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri M.M. Golvala, A.R Revenue by : Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode, CIT.D.R सुनवाई क"…

Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 3883/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…denied to them merely on technical grounds. The state authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt. Further, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Relevant portion is reproduced below: “It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question, it must be taken that i…

Reliance Life Scinces P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 2301/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…denied to them merely on technical grounds. The state authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt. Further, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Relevant portion is reproduced below: “It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question, it must be taken that i…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SN ITA No. Asst. Appellant Respondent Year 1 709/Bang/2018 2010- Sri Srinivasa The Asst. 11 Educational & Commissioner Charitable Trust, of Income-tax, No.619/G, 2ndBlock,. Central Circle 36th Cross, -2(1) Rajajinagar, 2nd Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 010 2 710/Bang/2018 2011- “ “ 12 3 711/Bang/2018 2012- “ “ 13 4 712/Bang/2018 2013- “ “ 14 5 1142//Bang/2018 2008- The Dy. Sri Srinivasa 09 Commissioner of Educational & Income-tax, Charitable Central Circle-2(1) Tr…

Viksun Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2044/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Viksun Agro Industries Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-26(1), C.R. Building, C-2/15, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaacv3387N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

Section 115Section 115JSection 194LSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)Section 56

…in the case of Goetze 4 India Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC), the assessee was required to revise its return of income and so the claim was not acceptable. 4. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Insurance Company Limited, 81 ITR 303 (Del) held that “it was incumbent on the Income Tax Department to find out whether a particular income was assessable or not and merely because the assessee wrongly included the income in its return of income for particular year, it could not confer jurisdiction on the Department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income was…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d. While holding so, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO(1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)”. 11. The Coordinate Bench at Pune also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench and also considered the CBDT circular No.9/2014 dated 23.4.2014 which has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of West Gujarat Expressway Ltd in…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d. While holding so, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO(1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)”. 11. The Coordinate Bench at Pune also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench and also considered the CBDT circular No.9/2014 dated 23.4.2014 which has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of West Gujarat Expressway Ltd in…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d. While holding so, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 : (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf vs. ITO(1970) 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatey (1981) 24 CTR (Bom) 142 : (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)”. 11. The Coordinate Bench at Pune also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench and also considered the CBDT circular No.9/2014 dated 23.4.2014 which has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of West Gujarat Expressway Ltd in…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 MDLR Builders P. Ltd. DCIT Flat No.4R.R Apartments, 3-4 Vs Central Circle – 14 Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi -110030 PAN No. AAECM5223C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2008-09 MDLR Estates P. Ltd. DCIT Flat No.4R.R Apartments, 3-4 Vs Central Circle – 14 Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi -110030 PAN No. AAECM5222D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by M…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 MDLR Builders P. Ltd. DCIT Flat No.4R.R Apartments, 3-4 Vs Central Circle – 14 Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi -110030 PAN No. AAECM5223C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2008-09 MDLR Estates P. Ltd. DCIT Flat No.4R.R Apartments, 3-4 Vs Central Circle – 14 Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi -110030 PAN No. AAECM5222D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by M…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…it was the duty of the ITO to consider whether the assessee was entitled to deduction, even when it was not claimed by the assessee. Similar observation was made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (DELHI)] and in CIT v. Sain Processing &Wvg. Mills (P.) Ltd]. Lastly, we also agree with the contention of the counsel for the Assessee, that Goetze India (supra) is distinguishable as that was a case of ‘fresh claim’ whereas the assessee’s case is of the ‘enhancement of its existing claim’. Hence, the decision of Goetze India (supra) is not appli…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…collected. While holding so, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has relied upon the various decisions e.g. S.R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165/146 Taxman 335 (Guj), C.P.A. Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the ITA No. 2848 & 28…

Embio Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 72ASection 72A(2)(iii)

…them merely on technical grounds. The state authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt. Further, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 Relevant portion is reproduced below: "It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question, it must be taken that it had r…

ITO, W-4, Panchkula vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi, Panchkula

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER The ITO Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula PAN No. ARUPB5117G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. A.K. Jindal, CA Department by : Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR Date of hearing : 05/02/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20/02/2019 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT : This is an appeal by the Department against the order dt. 22/11/2017 of Ld. CIT(A)-, Panchkula 2. Following grounds have been raised in the present app…

Gmr Enterprises Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2148/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR-II)
Section 14A

…e to demonstrate that the income returned by him is not in accordance with law and requisite facts in this regard are placed on records. This very issue was decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Insurance Co. Ltd [1971] 81 ITR 303. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee must be given an opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play to demonstrate and establish that disallowance made u/s 14A is not in accordance with law.” 11. As per this para of the Tribunal order in which the Tribunal has considered various judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Delhi High…

Gmr Enterprises Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2146/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR-II)
Section 14A

…e to demonstrate that the income returned by him is not in accordance with law and requisite facts in this regard are placed on records. This very issue was decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Insurance Co. Ltd [1971] 81 ITR 303. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee must be given an opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play to demonstrate and establish that disallowance made u/s 14A is not in accordance with law.” 11. As per this para of the Tribunal order in which the Tribunal has considered various judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Delhi High…