What is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. authority for?

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.?

935 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A, Section 132, Section 153A.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295)

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 64/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…in law. The entire addition is imaginary and warrants deletion which is calculated at Rs. 90,000/- for the year under consideration. To support this view the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) Income—Benefit under Advance licences and duty entitlement pass book—Year in which Taxable—In its return, assessee claimed deduction of advance licence benefit receivable and duty entitlement pass book benefit receivable—These benefits related to entitlement to import duty free raw material under relevant import and export policy by way of r…

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 63/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…in law. The entire addition is imaginary and warrants deletion which is calculated at Rs. 90,000/- for the year under consideration. To support this view the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) Income—Benefit under Advance licences and duty entitlement pass book—Year in which Taxable—In its return, assessee claimed deduction of advance licence benefit receivable and duty entitlement pass book benefit receivable—These benefits related to entitlement to import duty free raw material under relevant import and export policy by way of r…

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 62/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…in law. The entire addition is imaginary and warrants deletion which is calculated at Rs. 90,000/- for the year under consideration. To support this view the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) Income—Benefit under Advance licences and duty entitlement pass book—Year in which Taxable—In its return, assessee claimed deduction of advance licence benefit receivable and duty entitlement pass book benefit receivable—These benefits related to entitlement to import duty free raw material under relevant import and export policy by way of r…

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 61/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…in law. The entire addition is imaginary and warrants deletion which is calculated at Rs. 90,000/- for the year under consideration. To support this view the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) Income—Benefit under Advance licences and duty entitlement pass book—Year in which Taxable—In its return, assessee claimed deduction of advance licence benefit receivable and duty entitlement pass book benefit receivable—These benefits related to entitlement to import duty free raw material under relevant import and export policy by way of r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 2(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Sahakari Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaaj0607P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263(1)

…aforesaid contention that income tax could not be levied on hypothetical income had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, as under: 12 ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. M/s. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit (i) CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) (ii) P.G And W. Sawoo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 60 (SC) (iii) Morvi Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) (v) E.D. Sasson & Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) (vi) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) (vii) CIT Vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1…

Sgdc India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-23(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8003/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 250

…amount was received, a contrary view cannot be taken in the year under reference. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhaswami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); and CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). 6.1 It was further submitted on the basis of the agreements dated 24.12.2008 and 29.09.2009, available at pages 39 to 48 of the PB, that M/s Silverline Holdings Private Limited (“SHL”) and the assessee had entered into these agreements for the sole purpose that the security deposits received by SHL were handed over to the assessee as c…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 250

…amount was received, a contrary view cannot be taken in the year under reference. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhaswami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); and CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). 6.1 It was further submitted on the basis of the agreements dated 24.12.2008 and 29.09.2009, available at pages 39 to 48 of the PB, that M/s Silverline Holdings Private Limited (“SHL”) and the assessee had entered into these agreements for the sole purpose that the security deposits received by SHL were handed over to the assessee as c…

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4613/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma

Section 142(1)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 4613/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s Coronet Hotel DCIT Circle-6(2), Services & Suppliers Central Revenue Building, Vs. Pvt. Ltd. C-8/1A, Vasant New Delhi-110002. Vihar, New Delhi-110057. PAN No. AAACC3164A Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ld. CA Respondent by : Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.03.2023 Date of : 20.06.2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member: The Assessee/Appellant…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S. Bileshwar Khand Udhyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Kodinar, Dist. Gir - Somnath

In the result Ground No. 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 140/RJT/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 37

…that the assessee should be allowed for the deduction of such expenses on the basis of principles of consistency. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Excel Industries Ltd reported in 358 ITR 295 wherein it was held as under: “28. Secondly, as noted by the Tribunal, a consistent view has been taken in favour of the assessee on the questions raised, starting with the assessment year 1992-93, that the benefits under the advance licences or under the duty entitlement pass book do not represent the real income of the assessee. Consequently,…

ITO (E), Ward- 2(3), New Delhi vs. The Managing Committee of Shivala Apa Gangadhar, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 226/Del/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (E) The Managing बनाम Committee Of Shivala Vs. Ward : 2 (3) Apa Gangadhar, Near Red Fort, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan No. Aaatt7829A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, Adv

Section 11(1)(d)

…ITA. No. 226/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 226/Del/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (E) The Managing बनाम Committee of Shivala Vs. Ward : 2 (3) APA Gangadhar, Near Red Fort, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. PAN No. AAATT7829A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ"/ Respondent Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; & िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Adv.; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. D. R.; : सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Dat…

DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Wahid Sandhar Sugars Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6508/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 10(1)Section 2Section 41(1)

…wherein has been any change in fact and circumstances during the current previous year viz a viz past years and thereby applicability of the ratio of judgment in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 and CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held thus: "In Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to Income-tax proceedings. Again each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fun…

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…different view in the 24 THR Infrastructure Pte. Ltd. matter in a later year, without there being any change in facts or change in law and place reliance on decision in the case of Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT : 193 ITR 321 (SC) and CIT vs. Excel Industries : 358 ITR 295(SC). 3.3.6 Place of effective management (“POEM”) is in Singapore:- Assessee submitted that there were two Directors of the appellant namely, Mr. Gurpreet Singh Dhillon and Mr. Ravi Malhotra who were tax resident of Singapore and Hong Kong respectively and the place of effective management of the assessee company cannot be said to be in India, a…

New Delhi Export House, New Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1574/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmanew Delhi Export House Vs. Jcit 26-A, Hanuman Lane, Special Range-18, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110 001 Pan No. Aacfn 5373 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Sadhu, C.A. Shri Jatin Proothi, C.A. Revenue By Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2023

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Export House Vs. JCIT 26-A, Hanuman Lane, Special Range-18, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110 001 PAN No. AACFN 5373 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri S. Sadhu, C.A. Shri Jatin Proothi, C.A. Revenue by Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2023 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ed)” 36. Reliance is also placed by the ld. A.R. on the following decisions wherein it has been categorically held that income-tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income: • Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd :358 ITR 295 (SC) • CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas &Co : 46 ITR 144 (SC) • Airport Authority of India v. CIT : 340 ITR 407 (Del.) • CIT v. Ferozepur Finance (P.) Ltd : 124 ITR 619 (P&H) • CIT v. Motor Credit Co. (P.) Ltd : 127 ITR 572 (Mad.) 37. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the income of the Assessee never materialized and agreement under consideration w…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ed)” 36. Reliance is also placed by the ld. A.R. on the following decisions wherein it has been categorically held that income-tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income: • Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd :358 ITR 295 (SC) • CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas &Co : 46 ITR 144 (SC) • Airport Authority of India v. CIT : 340 ITR 407 (Del.) • CIT v. Ferozepur Finance (P.) Ltd : 124 ITR 619 (P&H) • CIT v. Motor Credit Co. (P.) Ltd : 127 ITR 572 (Mad.) 37. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the income of the Assessee never materialized and agreement under consideration w…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ed)” 36. Reliance is also placed by the ld. A.R. on the following decisions wherein it has been categorically held that income-tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income: • Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd :358 ITR 295 (SC) • CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas &Co : 46 ITR 144 (SC) • Airport Authority of India v. CIT : 340 ITR 407 (Del.) • CIT v. Ferozepur Finance (P.) Ltd : 124 ITR 619 (P&H) • CIT v. Motor Credit Co. (P.) Ltd : 127 ITR 572 (Mad.) 37. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the income of the Assessee never materialized and agreement under consideration w…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…owable as current year expenses. 4. Further the rate of tax being same, it does not matter whether it is allowed as deduction in the year in which the expenditure is booked or in earlier year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 has held that when the rate of tax remained the same in present assessment year as well as in the subsequent AY, the dispute raised by the revenue is entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect. There was, therefore, no need for the Revenue to continue with the litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on mer…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…owable as current year expenses. 4. Further the rate of tax being same, it does not matter whether it is allowed as deduction in the year in which the expenditure is booked or in earlier year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 has held that when the rate of tax remained the same in present assessment year as well as in the subsequent AY, the dispute raised by the revenue is entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect. There was, therefore, no need for the Revenue to continue with the litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on mer…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…owable as current year expenses. 4. Further the rate of tax being same, it does not matter whether it is allowed as deduction in the year in which the expenditure is booked or in earlier year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 has held that when the rate of tax remained the same in present assessment year as well as in the subsequent AY, the dispute raised by the revenue is entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect. There was, therefore, no need for the Revenue to continue with the litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on mer…

Nalini Mahajan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3130/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 28Section 28(1)Section 55(2)

…ective amendment in section 28(a)) was treated as capital receipt, which has been accepted by the Revenue in the assessments completed under section 143(1) of the Act. 23. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Supreme Courts in the cases of Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 and Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh v. CIT: 193 ITR 321. D. Conclusion and Prayer 24. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned aggregate payment of Rs.3.2 crores received towards undertaking restrictive covenant of not imparting service to any other person and not to share associated goodwill of medical practice, being in the nature…

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

What is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 2(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur

Sgdc India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-23(2), New Delhi

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

The DCIT, Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S. Bileshwar Khand Udhyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Kodinar, Dist. Gir - Somnath

ITO (E), Ward- 2(3), New Delhi vs. The Managing Committee of Shivala Apa Gangadhar, Delhi

DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Wahid Sandhar Sugars Ltd, New Delhi

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

New Delhi Export House, New Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range-18, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

Nalini Mahajan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi