CIT v. Calcutta Export Company

404 ITR 654Supreme Court of India2018#1222 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Export Company authority for?

A statutory proviso supplying an obvious omission must be read retrospectively to make the section workable and effective as a whole. This principle allows the claim of deduction under Section 80JJAA.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Export Company · Calcutta Export Company · Section 80JJAA · retrospective amendment · retrospective proviso · statutory interpretation · deduction allowance · additional employee cost · Income Tax Act 1961 · tax deduction

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 51255 Taxmann 293

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 139Section 1961Section 197Section 201Section 263

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expenditurecomparable uncontrolled price methodsection 80jjasection 92(1)section 80jjaacost plus methodfunctional analysissection 92c(3)section 92fmanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Export Company

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2455/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

…the issue came up in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata I.T.A. Nos.: 2454 & 2455/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 293 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 654 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 201 (SC)[24-04-2018] in respect of the amendment to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held the amendment to be curative and, therefore, retrospective in nature, an extract of the findings from which is as under: “■ The controversy surrounding the above amendment was whether the a…

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2454/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

…the issue came up in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata I.T.A. Nos.: 2454 & 2455/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 293 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 654 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 201 (SC)[24-04-2018] in respect of the amendment to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held the amendment to be curative and, therefore, retrospective in nature, an extract of the findings from which is as under: “■ The controversy surrounding the above amendment was whether the a…

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 9000/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 7424/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6838/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

DCIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company 404 ITR 654. 102. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act as claimed by the assessee.‖ 134. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction. Ground No. 15 is accor…

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1638/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit, Durr India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. 471, Prestige Polygon, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aaacd 3568P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

…AO CPC has fully disallowed of the claim of the appellant. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) restrict the disallowance to 30% of payments made to residents without deduction of tax at source. Judicial precedents, including CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. [(2018) 404 ITR 654 (SC)], clarify that procedural lapses should not lead to excessive disallowances. The appellant has produced document that payment has been made to the resident. Hence, based on the factual and legal position on the issue, the disallowance is restricted to Rs.17,40,286/- and the ground no.2 to 3 is partly-allowed. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue has r…

MORESHWAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS & TEJAS SUPERSTRCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3448/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Moreshwar Builders & Income Tax Officer, Developers & Tejas Ward-3(2), Superstructures Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Private Limited Jv, Kalyan Murbad Road, A-01, Shubhvastu Apartment, Above Canara Bank, Pandit Dindayal Road, Kalyan Dombivli West, Maharashtra-421301. Thane, Maharashtra-421202. Pan : Aabam6975E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad, Dated 13-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Moreshwar Builders and Income Tax Officer, Developers & Tejas Ward-3(2), Superstructures vs. 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Private Limited JV, Kalyan Murbad Road, A-01, Shubhvastu Apartment, Above Canara Bank, Pandit Dindayal Road, Kalyan Dombivli West, Maharashtra-421301. Thane, Maharashtra-421202. PAN : AABAM6975E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PURPLE DEVELOPERS, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2210/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Purple Developers Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-26, Cloud-9, Survey No. 46/1+2, Mumbai. Next to Sunshree Woods, NIBM Road, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune-411048. (PAN: AAGFP4055J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer M/s. Purple Developers ITO Ward 3(1), B Wing, Cloud-9, Survey No. 46/1+2, 1st Floor, PMT Building, Next to Sunshree Woods, Income Tax Department, Vs. NIBM Road, Kondhwa, Swargate, Pune, Pune-411048. 411037. (PA…

PURPLE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT 15(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5627/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Purple Developers Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-26, Cloud-9, Survey No. 46/1+2, Mumbai. Next to Sunshree Woods, NIBM Road, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune-411048. (PAN: AAGFP4055J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer M/s. Purple Developers ITO Ward 3(1), B Wing, Cloud-9, Survey No. 46/1+2, 1st Floor, PMT Building, Next to Sunshree Woods, Income Tax Department, Vs. NIBM Road, Kondhwa, Swargate, Pune, Pune-411048. 411037. (PA…

VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1776 & 1782/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, 301, Sheel Ward -8(4), Ahmedabad Vs. Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006 & Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Vs. JCIT Ltd. Range-8, Ahmedabad 3rd Floor, 301, Sheel Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAC…

THE ITO, WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1776 & 1782/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, 301, Sheel Ward -8(4), Ahmedabad Vs. Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006 & Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Vs. JCIT Ltd. Range-8, Ahmedabad 3rd Floor, 301, Sheel Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAC…

METAKAPS ENGINEERING (JV),MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrimetakaps Engineering (Jv) V/S. Cit, (A), Delhi 303 Salvation Apartment, बनाम National Faceless Appeal Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Centre, Delhi-110001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam8327K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri M. S. ShethFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Metakaps Engineering (JV) v/s. CIT, (A), Delhi 303 Salvation Apartment, बनाम National Faceless Appeal Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Centre, Delhi-110001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAM8327K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee by : Shri M. S. Sheth Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Comm…

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Nabhiraj Ratna Balraj Vs. The Income Tax Officer, By L/H Rakesh, Ward 7(2)(1), C/o. Jwalamala Jewellers, Bangalore. No.17, 9th Main Road, 36th Cross, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041. PAN : AARPR 8825M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This a…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MEELENDRA DEEPENDRA SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4430/Mum/2023 is dismissed

ITA 4430/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Room No.116, 1St Floor, Meelendra Deependra Singh, G-Block, 503, Pushpakunj, A Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bfaps5402N Assessee By : Shri H.N. Motiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Meshram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Motiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…rposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Thus an amendment by insertion of proviso seeks to relieve the assessee from undue hardship. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51/255 Taxman 293/404 ITR 654, considered the question as to whether the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 to Proviso of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is curative in nature and it has to given retrospective operation from the date of insertion of the said proviso i.e., with effect from Assessment Year 2005-06. It was pointed out that the purpose of the amendment made by t…

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Calcutta Export Company (404 ITR 654) — Cited in 93 Judgments | BharatTax