What is CIT v. Essar Tele authority for?

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, read with Section 14A, applies prospectively. It cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Essar Tele?

198 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Essar Tele (401 ITR 445), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Essar Tele come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(viia), Section 37(1).

CIT v. Essar Tele (401 ITR 445)

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8642/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 140ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01 1 Raymond Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The DCIT-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACR4896A Assessee .. Revenue Assessee by : Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Shri T. Shankar Date of…

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8641/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 140ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 80H

…ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01 1 Raymond Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The DCIT-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACR4896A Assessee .. Revenue Assessee by : Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Shri T. Shankar Date of…

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…is that assessee had not derived any exempt income at all and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Essar Teleholdings Ltd., reported in 401 ITR 445. 3.2. Respectfully following the same, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground Nos.2 & 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed. ITA No. 4091/Mum/2019 & CO No. 72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd. 14. The Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012-13 in ITA No. 3398/Mum/2017 dated 30.01.2019 h…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tex vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/952/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…ccordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. (iv) Disallowance under Section 14A The tribunal minutely examined the entire facts as well as considered the judgment of Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., (2018) 401 ITR 445 and inter alia held as under: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. In so far as first contention of the Ld. Counsel is concerned, that rule 8D is not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08, same now stands covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra!) -3 vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwe!L (P) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/930/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…ccordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. (iv) Disallowance under Section 14A The tribunal minutely examined the entire facts as well as considered the judgment of Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., (2018) 401 ITR 445 and inter alia held as under: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. In so far as first contention of the Ld. Counsel is concerned, that rule 8D is not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08, same now stands covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Central)-3 vs. Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/936/2019HC Delhi12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

…ccordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. (iv) Disallowance under Section 14A The tribunal minutely examined the entire facts as well as considered the judgment of Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., (2018) 401 ITR 445 and inter alia held as under: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. In so far as first contention of the Ld. Counsel is concerned, that rule 8D is not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08, same now stands covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case…

Forbes and Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3693/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalforbes & Company Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ground Floor, Forbes Building Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai Charanjit Rai Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Forbes and Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Ground Floor, Forbes Building Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai Charanjit Rai Marg, Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AAACF1765A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ketan Ved Department represented by Shri S.N. Kabra Sr AR Date of hearing 21/03/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/03/2022 ORDER Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals…

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Mangilal Padamchand, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 25/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1681/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR

Section 250(6)Section 92C

…applicable for the impugned year,we find that there is no dispute as regards the same with even the Ld.CIT(A) agreeing with it and the Hon’ble Supreme Court having settled this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445(SC) .But we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has still gone on to uphold the disallowance of expenses computed as per Rule 8D. We are not in agreement with the same since though the inapplicability of Rule 8D does not rule out any disallowance to be made ,at the same time the quantum of disallowance has to be worked out as per the most appropriate method…

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 695/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 694/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Sri. Shamanna Nagamma Balasubramany, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…ovision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 13 M/s.Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

Sri. P Anand Vardhan Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 663/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43E

…nefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here……” 7.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that judgment in the ca…

CIT v. Essar Tele

What is CIT v. Essar Tele authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Essar Tele

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Principal Commissioner of Income Tex vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra!) -3 vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwe!L (P) Ltd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Central)-3 vs. Gahoi Buildwell (P) Ltd

Forbes and Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Mangilal Padamchand, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sri. Shamanna Nagamma Balasubramany, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sri. P Anand Vardhan Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru