How many judgments cite CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.?

236 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 8), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 153A.

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

91 ITR 8Supreme Court of India1973#373 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. authority for?

Income cannot be assessed on purely notional figures or mere suspicion; it must be based on actual evidence and supporting material demonstrating its accrual or receipt by the assessee. Assessments made without such evidence are bad-in-law.

236

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. · 91 ITR 8 · assessment without evidence · notional income · income accrual · income receipt · mere statement basis · supporting material · Section 143(3) · Section 142(1) · K.P. Varghese

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153A Section 69 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153b(i)(a)section 132(8)section 132(9a)section 153(1)(a)section 145a valuation of shares section 65b section 65 section 153(1)icds dumb documents section 153b

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Nanded vs. Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nanded

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1017/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…y has not made secret profits nor has received this difference in price back from the members and as such fictional income which is not received by the assessee cannot be taxed in its hands as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd, 91 ITR 8 (SC). b) In some appeals before CIT(A), assessee has relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 117 for the proposition that rebate given by Co-op. Society to its members‟ was not disallowable in Society‟s hands and therefore the discount given to members in the price of sugar should not be taxed in the hands of the Co-op. Society. In some appeals the CIT(A)…

Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. Assistatn Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 954/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…y has not made secret profits nor has received this difference in price back from the members and as such fictional income which is not received by the assessee cannot be taxed in its hands as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd, 91 ITR 8 (SC). b) In some appeals before CIT(A), assessee has relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 117 for the proposition that rebate given by Co-op. Society to its members’ was not disallowable in Society’s hands and therefore the discount given to members in the price of sugar should not be taxed in the hands of the Co-op. Society. In some appeals the CIT(A)…

Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. Assistatn Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 953/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…y has not made secret profits nor has received this difference in price back from the members and as such fictional income which is not received by the assessee cannot be taxed in its hands as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd, 91 ITR 8 (SC). b) In some appeals before CIT(A), assessee has relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 117 for the proposition that rebate given by Co-op. Society to its members’ was not disallowable in Society’s hands and therefore the discount given to members in the price of sugar should not be taxed in the hands of the Co-op. Society. In some appeals the CIT(A)…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshacit-31(1) M/S Gundecha Builders, Room No. 111, C-13, 801, Hubtown Solaries, Vs. 1St Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E), N.S. Phadke Marg, Off Telui Mumbai-400051 Galli, Near Andheri Flyover, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400062. Pan: Aaafg0848E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (C.A.) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya (C.A.)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 260A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT-31(1) M/s Gundecha Builders, Room No. 111, C-13, 801, Hubtown Solaries, Vs. 1st Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E), N.S. Phadke Marg, Off Telui Mumbai-400051 Galli, Near Andheri Flyover, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400062. PAN: AAAFG0848E Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR) Respondent by : Shri Vimal Punmiya (C.A.) Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle & Waud Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 25O(4)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 982/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT-1(1)(2) M/s. Hardcastle & Waud Vs. 579, Aayakar Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road Gate No. 10, 1st Floor Mumbai-400 020. Balbourne Stadium 87, Veer Nariman Road Churchgate Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACH0398F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Date of Hearing 4.4.2019 Date of Pronouncement 3.6.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of learne…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cosmos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7150/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69B

…evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. This position is strongly supported by the following decisions of the Apex Court: a) CIT V Roman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) b) CIT v Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) c) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) d) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 734)(SC) 5.3,7 In view of the above, I find that there is no justification for presuming that on money of Rs. 5,59,30,0007- was made by the appellant. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate fa…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 891/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-9, Vs Harish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Afspk5240H Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-9, Vs Satish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Ahhpk5236G

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

…s that while following 6 the decision in the case of CIT vs A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and approving the decision in the case of Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad), the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Calcutta Discounts,91 ITR 8 (SC) held that the taxing authority cannot take into account the market value of the case ignoring the real value fetched for the same. For these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the appeals. 9. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Facts are straight and simple.The issue price of the shares was Rs.12 cro…

Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Bhavnagar Range- I, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 1157/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1157/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1157/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Rajendra Ship Breakers The Joint बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Commissioner of Vs. D-79, Near Ram Mantra Income=tax Mandir,Kalvibid, Bhavnagar Bhavngar Range-1 Bhavnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCR 0105 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B.R. Popat, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR 27/11/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Heari…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…/05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.)…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.)…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Khandelia Oil & General Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 14Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…chooses to give discount to someone, he is free to do it. The only criteria/condition is that the transaction (sale) should not result in loss. 11.6 This principle was enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. (91 ITR 8) in which Their Lordships have held that when a trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price which is less than the market price, so long as the transaction is bonafide, the revenue authorities cannot consider the market price ignoring the real price fetched to compute profits from the transaction. It was also held by the Apex Court in t…

Khandelia Oil & General Mills Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 548/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh

Section 14Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…1 Suspicious cannot take place the DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, evidence (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014 K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) 2 Observation of Third party cannot ITO v/s Permanand [2008 25 SOT be basis of addition. Satisfaction 11] of AO is must: ITO v. Vinod Kumar, Prop., Vinod Brothers, Sriganganagar, [ITA No. 623/Jodh. of 2005 ITO v/s Arora Alloys Ltd. [2012] [12 ITR (trib) 263] 3 Term Suspicious as M-VAT was…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…therein supports the case of the Revenue. It 17 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.)…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 7 Gautam Tube Corporation ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 7 Gautam Tube Corporation ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (…

Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2325/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2325/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) M/s. Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. 112, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Appellant 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AADCR0426K v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai ITA no.3036/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. 112, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Respondent 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AADCR0426K…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT

Section 131

…penses on creation of intangibles/brand and those expenses are capital in nature and cannot be allowed as deduction while computing income. 20. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., 91 ITR 8 (SC). In the aforesaid decision the facts were that the assessee-company floated a subsidiary company during the relevant previous year and transferred to that subsidiary company various shares held by it. In return the subsidiary company transferred to the assessee-company its shares of the value of Rs. 1,38,81,173. The book value of shares transfe…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…13/05/2016 and the ratio laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.)…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…laid down therein supports the case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- 9 Startech Engineers i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.)…