CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd.

274 ITR 336High Court2005#8096 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also reported as

142 Taxmann 481

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 40(a)(1)interest under section 201(1a)percentage completion methodsection 194jemployees contribution to pfsection 10(34)section 21computer softwaresection 40(a)(i)section 201(1a)section 30

Judgments citing CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd.

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of ‘Imagine’, No. 78, Income Tax, ITPL Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCT9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of Pron…

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of ‘Imagine’, No. 78, Income Tax, ITPL Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCT9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of Pron…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of ‘Imagine’, No. 78, Income Tax, ITPL Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCT9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of Pron…

JT.CIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R
Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

…ar 2011-12 and 2012-13. This fact can be verified from the details available on pages 275 to 277 of the paper book. 20.5 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coral Electronic Pvt Ltd. reported 274 ITR 336, where it was held as under: 8. In the instant case the amount that was received was only as charges for the services to be rendered in future. The services may be rendered or may not be rendered depending upon withdrawal of the money as and when the customer required. So, it is highly uncertain as to whether it would at all remain as income of t…

AXIS BANK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 852/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R
Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

…ar 2011-12 and 2012-13. This fact can be verified from the details available on pages 275 to 277 of the paper book. 20.5 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coral Electronic Pvt Ltd. reported 274 ITR 336, where it was held as under: 8. In the instant case the amount that was received was only as charges for the services to be rendered in future. The services may be rendered or may not be rendered depending upon withdrawal of the money as and when the customer required. So, it is highly uncertain as to whether it would at all remain as income of t…

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, and Shri Parin Shah,For Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT.DR
Section 14A

…r 2011-12 and 2012-13. This fact can be verified from the details available on pages 275 to 277 of the paper book. 20.5 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coral Electronic Pvt Ltd. reported 274 ITR 336, where it was held as under: 8. In the instant case the amount that was received was only as charges for the services to be rendered in future. The services may be rendered or may not be rendered depending upon withdrawal of the money as and when the customer required. So, it is highly uncertain as to whether it would at all remain as income of t…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Muli-purpose Society Ltd. : 234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack) - Consid…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Muli-purpose Society Ltd. : 234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack) - Consid…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Muli-purpose Society Ltd. : 234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack) - Consid…

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Muli-purpose Society Ltd. : 234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack) - Consid…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Muli-purpose Society Ltd. : 234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack) - Consid…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Muli-purpose Society Ltd. : 234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack) - Consid…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAPITAL CARE INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Ahuja, C.A
Section 142(1)

…conditions viz the revenue is measurable and that the revenue is collectable, without any uncertainty. Therefore, either to apply the accrual system or cash system, recognition of income is a paramount factor. 5.18 In CIT Vs. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd (2005) 274 ITR 336 (Mad), it was held that service,' charges received in advance for the services to be rendered in the future years are not liable to tax in the year of receipt. Only upon 11 ITA No.81/Del./2014 completion of the service, the assessee had a right over the amount that was deposited. Till then, it remains uncertain as to whether it would at all rema…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S E-ENABLE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 2359/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :Asstt. Yr: 2006-07 Dcit Circle-11(1), Vs. M/S E-Enable Technologies Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. 34, Netaji Slubhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002. Pan: Aaace 9909 K ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amrit Lal Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Himanshu Sinha Adv.& Sh. Satyam Rastogi Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2015. Date Of Order : 18/01/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Amrit Lal Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sinha Adv.&

…by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The assessee further pointed out that it was consistently following this accounting policy. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Computer Ltd. 233 ITR 366, wherein under similar facts the assessee’s claim was upheld. 9. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim by observing as under: “6.5. I have considered the assessment order as well as the written submission of the appellant. The reason the AO did not accept the contention of the appellant was because the AMC has been received by the assessee…

CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. (274 ITR 336) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax