CIT v. BOB Cards Ltd.

56 SOT 232Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#25264 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. BOB Cards Ltd.

Dy CIT 9 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sabmiller India Ltd (Now Known As Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 7110/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 200Section 32Section 32(1)Section 40

…2016, and Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. v/s ACIT, for the assessment year 2011–12, vide order dated 18th February 2020. Apart from this, the learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the decision of the Tribunal in CIT v/s BOB Cards Ltd., [2013] 56 SOT 232 (Mum.). Accordingly, the learned Counsel submitted that the issue be decided in favour of the assessee by upholding the order of the learned CIT(A). 9 Sabmiller India Ltd. (Now known as Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd.) 14. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 15. After hearing both the parties,…

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1205/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…` 78,03,184. Being of the view that the tax withheld cannot be claimed as expenditure, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same. 36. While deciding the objection on the issue, the DRP following the decision of the Tribunal in CIT v/s BOB Cards Ltd., [2013] 56 SOT 232 (Mum.), held that since the assessee has agreed to borne the tax liability of the payee, it has to be allowed as expenditure. Accordingly, the DRP deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 37. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the facts relating to the issue have not been properly examined as neither the Assessing Offic…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Chiron Behring Vaccines P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5579/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-9(2)(1) M/S Chiron Behring R. No.665A 6Th Floor, Vcaccines Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 501, Shri Amba Shanti Vs. M. K. Road, Chambers, Anderi Kurla Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacc6494P

Section 36(1)(VII)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…to the ground raised. On the other hand, Ms. Ashwini Bhosale, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Bobcards Ltd. (2013) 56 SOT 232 (Mum.). This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. 3 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 20/06/2012 for ready reference and analysis:- “The Revenue has fil…