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)

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3390/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

…f AO and that of the CIT(A) and argued that the amount is accrued in earlier years and the same has been disclosed by assessee regularly on accrual basis. He relied on the same case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., (2013) 358 ITR 295 as referred by ld.counsel for the assessee. The ld. Senior DR stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 27 has considered this issue and noted as under:- “27. Applying the three tests laid down by various decisions of this Court, namely, whether the income accrued to the assessee is real or hypothetical; whether there is a corresponding liabi…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ore Page 64 of 115 14.3 The ld. AR submitted that the entire issued is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR ii) 1(SC) 14.4 The statement of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not been directed to offer income in the subsequent year is totally unacceptable as the method for offering income has not only been accepted in the two prior years by way of scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) o…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ore Page 64 of 115 14.3 The ld. AR submitted that the entire issued is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR ii) 1(SC) 14.4 The statement of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not been directed to offer income in the subsequent year is totally unacceptable as the method for offering income has not only been accepted in the two prior years by way of scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) o…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ore Page 64 of 115 14.3 The ld. AR submitted that the entire issued is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR ii) 1(SC) 14.4 The statement of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not been directed to offer income in the subsequent year is totally unacceptable as the method for offering income has not only been accepted in the two prior years by way of scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) o…

Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

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

ITA 929/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…is a change in the facts and circumstances, the view taken earlier should normally be taken consistently. For this kindly refer Sardar Kehar Singh v/s CIT (1991) 92 CTR 88/(1992) 195 ITR 769 (Raj), and a recent decision in CIT v/s Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER It is a judicially accepted principle that when the facts are same, a uniform view should be adopted for the subsequent years in the income tax proceedings unless there is a material change in the facts, which has not been established by the AO. Kindly refer Radhasoami Satsang v/s CIT (1992…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

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

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…is a change in the facts and circumstances, the view taken earlier should normally be taken consistently. For this kindly refer Sardar Kehar Singh v/s CIT (1991) 92 CTR 88/(1992) 195 ITR 769 (Raj), and a recent decision in CIT v/s Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). It is a judicially accepted principle that when the facts are same, a uniform view should be adopted for the subsequent years in the income tax proceedings unless there is a material change in the facts, which has not been established by the AO. Kindly refer Radhasoami Satsang v/s CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), on the theory of consistency, h…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ajmer

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

ITA 396/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

…ency cannot be violated. Please refer case laws cited in ITAT w/s Pg 24 Pr. 2 of A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 397/JP/15, Kindly refer SardarKehar Singh v/s CIT (1991) 92 CTR 88/(1992) 195 ITR 769 (Raj), and a recent decision in CIT v/s Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). 5. Though the lower authorities alleged that on making inquiries form the RTO with reference to the subjected advances of the customers, it was found that no sales were registered in the name of such customers (AO Pg. 9-10). However, it was for the simple reason that the assessee as per the consistent policy of recognizing sale, has accoun…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…rdance with law.” 8.3 In our opinion, the entire issued is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. For this proposition, we place reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd 299 ITR 1(SC) ii) 8.4 It is a settled position of law that department cannot collect tax twice on the very same income and observation of the AO is absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Act that income can only' be taxed once more so when the revenue has accepted the income determined using the same…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…rdance with law.” 8.3 In our opinion, the entire issued is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. For this proposition, we place reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd 299 ITR 1(SC) ii) 8.4 It is a settled position of law that department cannot collect tax twice on the very same income and observation of the AO is absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Act that income can only' be taxed once more so when the revenue has accepted the income determined using the same…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…rdance with law.” 8.3 In our opinion, the entire issued is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. For this proposition, we place reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd 299 ITR 1(SC) ii) 8.4 It is a settled position of law that department cannot collect tax twice on the very same income and observation of the AO is absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Act that income can only' be taxed once more so when the revenue has accepted the income determined using the same…

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

…counsel submitted that assets were received only for testing analysing and validation of software and they had no relation to the core business of assessee. He placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Excel industries reported in 358 ITR 295, wherein following CIT vs shoes Kariwala pass an company reported in 46 ITR 114, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid out following principles: • there must be an income on which tax is to be levied an income tax is a tax on income • tax cannot be levied on hypothetical/notional income. 5.1 Ld.Counsel thus submitted that for section 28 (iv) to be applicabl…

Springer Nature Customer Services Centre Gmbh, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Internationalo Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2534/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Springer Nature Customer Services Vs Jcit Centre Gmbh (Earlier Known As (International Taxation), Springer Customer Centre Gmbh), Circle-3(1)(2), 7Th Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi. 17-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aascs1092B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, Bhuwan Dhooper & Vibhu Gupta, Advocates Respondent By Ms. Rashmita Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…5] 56 ITR 42 (SC) • CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.: [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC) • CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.: [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) • Godhra Electricity Company V CIT: [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) 12 | P a g e Ground No. 4: Interest charged under section 234A and 234B of the Act 4.1 This ground is consequential in nature. Ground No. 5: Penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(l)(c) of the Act 5.1 There shall be no levy of penalty if the aforesaid grounds are decided in favour of the Appellant. 5.2 Further, it is well-settled l…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…rpose of indexation which would be proportionate to the fair market value of land. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 100/219 Taxman 379/358 ITR 295 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "32. Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. There is no dispute that in the subsequent accounting year, the assessee did make imports and did derive benefits under the advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax thereo…

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…page 40 of the paper book. The Ld.AR 4 ITA 1496/Mum/2019 reiterated that these are in the nature of revenue expenditure and does not have any enduring benefit to the assessee company. The Ld.AR relied on the decision in the case of Excel Industries Ltd (2013 358 ITR 295 (SC), Taparia Tools Ltd vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, contended that the impugned expenses incurred by the assessee company are of enduring benefit to the assessee company and that the cases relied upon by the Ld.AR are distinguishable to the present case in hand. The Ld.DR further stated that even otherwise, i…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Bhavani Industries, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 108/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 108/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S Bhavani Industries, Circle-2(1), Vs. C/1-B, 236/3, Gidc, Rajkot. Aji Industrial Estate, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R

Section 80I

…us, in our considered view the principles of consistency need to be applied in the given facts and circumstances. 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, th…

The Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3169/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Deutshe Investments Vs. The Principal Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax-12 Block B-1, Nirlon Knowledge Room No.363, Aayakar Park Bhavan, M.K. Marg Western Express Highway Mumbai – 400 020 Goregaon-East Mumbai – 400 063 PAN/GIR No.AACCD1765E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Niraj Sheth Revenue by Shri T Shankar Date of Hearing 24/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3033/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…mprobability of realization of such interest. Even in such a case, the courts have held that no real income has accrued to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC), wherein the benefit of an entitlement to make duty free imports could not be taken until the goods are imported and made available for clearance, also there was no liability on part of the other party to pass on the benefit to the assessee and, hence, it was held that only hypothetical income had accrued to the assessee. The Court has equat…

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…mprobability of realization of such interest. Even in such a case, the courts have held that no real income has accrued to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC), wherein the benefit of an entitlement to make duty free imports could not be taken until the goods are imported and made available for clearance, also there was no liability on part of the other party to pass on the benefit to the assessee and, hence, it was held that only hypothetical income had accrued to the assessee. The Court has equat…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

…ntention that allowing claim of the entire incremental VRS pension liability in the captioned AY instead of amortizing payments made during the captioned AY over 5 years would not be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue: - (i). Excel Industries Limited (358 ITR 295) (Supreme Court); (ii). Nagri Mills Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay High Court); and 40 M/s. Novartis India Limited (iii). Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITR No 229/1988) dated 6 May 2008 51. Ld. AR further submitted that incremental liability on account of pension under VRS should be allowed as revenue expenses in view of ITAT ord…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ilarly, in the later years also the appellant continues making payment of interest but no disallowances is reported. Kindly refer CIT v/s Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar) /(1991) 59 Taxmann 439 ( KAR) and CIT v/s Excel Industries (2013) 93 DTR 457/ 358 ITR 295 (SC)/ ( 2013) 38 taxmann.com 100(SC) (DPB 15-21) 5. Not whole amount represent the loans &advances: The appellant company had advanced interest free funds to the subsidiaries, as and when required by them which has been subjected by the ld. CIT(A) to disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) by alleging that the interest bearing funds were given by way of inte…

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.

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ajmer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

Springer Nature Customer Services Centre Gmbh, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Internationalo Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Bhavani Industries, Rajkot-Gujarat

The Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur