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 295Supreme Court of India2013#49 most cited

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.

935

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. · Excel Industries Ltd SC 2013 · Revenue Neutral principle · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive income · taxability of revenue neutral transactions · Section 147 Income Tax Act · reassessment · Section 148 Income Tax Act · profits and gains of business or profession · no tax liability revenue neutral · income accrual reversal

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 100219 Taxmann 379

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 132 Section 153A Section 1961 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receive mercantile system of accounting rule of consistency section 35 profits and gains of business or profession revenue expenditure liable to tax section 80i section 37(1)section 28 section 32 capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

Daga Global Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are

ITA 5296/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Daga Global Chemicals D C I T - 12(2)(1) P. Ltd. Room No. 223/262 101, Mahek Plaza 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Pan – Aaacd2233M Appellant Respondent D C I T - 12(2)(1) M/S. Daga Global Chemicals Room No. 223/262 P. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 101, Mahek Plaza Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Off L.T. Road, Maharashtra Nagar Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400092 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92E

…t the commission paid is unreasonable and excessive. In this regard, the ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) and CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC). M/s. Daga Global Chemicals P. Ltd 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has not provided relevant details before the authorities below. He submitted that no document relating to the services provided and how the rates of commission were fixed were submitted before the Assessing Officer. Hence, the…

Jt.CIT (OSD)-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Corporate Finance Service India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2200/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved a/w Shri N.A. PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3017/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(2)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., 12, Dr. Annie Basant Rd. ……………. Respondent Opp. Shiv Sagar Estate, Worli Mumbai 400 018 PAN – AABCD1147R ITA no.277/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(2)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Deloitte and Touche Consulting India, 12, Dr. Annie Basant Rd. ……………. Resp…

DCIT, Cir-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 401/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 24Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(iii)

…11, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. The copies of the assessment orders are placed on pages 107 to 158 of the paper book. AR in support of assessee’s claim also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. reported in 358 ITR 295 (SC) and on the order of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. Vs. ITO 110 ITD 337 (Kol). He relied on order of Ld CIT(A). ITA No. 401/Kol/2016 & CO. 25/Kol/2016 A.Y 2011-12 DCIT Cir-1, Slg. Vs. M/s Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 380 & 381/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke M/s Rajasthan State Industrial ACIT Vs. Development & Investment Corp. Circle-6, Ltd., Jaipur. Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- scheme, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCR 4695 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 511 & 512/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Maruti Securities Limited, Secundrabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1651/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…assessments for AY 1960 onwards. Apex court held that this amounts to change of opinion and re-assessment is not valid. 23. Further, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. & Ors. (358 ITR 295) and submitted that going by the accounting standard though the revenue is collectible by certainty, the assessee in the present case, in fact, had not received any interest and hence, interest in question remained only notional interest. As canvassed by the learned counsel for the assessee, some of the parties did not repay even the principal am…

The Asst. CIT, Guntur vs. Sri Grandhi Subba Rao, Guntur

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

ITA 239/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other." 10. Accordingly, the questions raised for our consideration do not give rise to any substantial question of law.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) held that when the rate of tax remained the same in the present assessment year as well as the subsequent assessment year, the revenue has not been deprived of any tax. For the sake of convenience, we extract relevant paragraph of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which reads as under: 32. Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in…

Grandhi Subbarao, Guntur vs. The Addl. CIT, Guntur

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

ITA 223/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Anchor Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4407/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ted in favour of the assessee a debt due by somebody it cannot be said that he has acquired a right to receive the income or that income has accrued to him. 2. CIT v/s. Shri Goverdhan Ltd. - [(1968) 69 ITR 675 (SC)J 3. CIT v/s. Excel Industries Ltd. - [(2013) 358 ITR 295 (SCJJ Even in case of mercantile system, income does not accrue unless the corresponding liability is created by the payer. 4. CIT v/s. ACE Builders - [(1993) 202 ITR 324 (Bom)J [H.N. 324] [Income is held to accrue only when the assessee acquires a right to receive that income. In other words, income can be said to accrue on a date when 10 ITA 4…

Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Sangeetha Sabha, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(2)

ITA 1975/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1975/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6858/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Sri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Ddit (Exemption)-I-(2) Sangeetha Sabha Piramal Chambers, 5Th Floor 292,Comrade Harbanslal Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 012. Sion (East)Mumbai-400 022. Pan:Aaats 2694 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri V. Rajguru-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind Javeri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2018 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 20/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)-1, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals For The Same A.Y.The First Appeal Is Against The Regular Appellate Order,Whereas The Second Appeal Is About The Rectification Application Filed Under Section 154 Of The Act. We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together. Assessee-A Registered Trust,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2011,Along With The Income & Expenditure Account & Other Financial Statements Declaring Deficit Of Rs. 27.17 Crores. The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment On,10/03/2014,U/S. 143(3)Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.4.51 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Rajguru-CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…11(ITA/1849/2011).For the rental receipt he relied upon case of Madras Stock Exchange Ltd.(105 ITR 546) and Woman’s India Trust(379 ITR 506).For Rule of consistency,he referred to the case of Shree Ram Memorial Foundation (158 ITR 3) and Excel Industries Ltd.(358 ITR 295).Cases of Thyaga Brahma Gana Sabha (188 ITR 160),Delhi Music Society(357 ITR 265) Jeevan Vidya Mission (ITA/770/ Mum/ 2014,dtd.30.09.2014)were relied upon to argue that music was part of educational activity. The cases of Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust(IT Appeal No.2307 of 2013 dtd.13.04.2016), India Trade Promotion Organisation(371 ITR 333) and A…

I.T.O., Ward-35(3), Kolkata vs. Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2253/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 2253/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 I.T.O., Ward- 35 (3), -Vs.- Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Kolkata Co-Op.Credit Society Ltd.,Kolkata [Pan : Aabak 6244 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Md.Usman, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri S.L.Kochar, Advocate & Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.09.2016 Of C.I.T.(A)-10, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Follows :- “(I)That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld, Cit(A) Had Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,07,21,269/-. Made On Account Of Income From Investment Under The Head Income From Other Sources. (Ii). That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law In Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.5,11,980/- Made On Account Of Income From Holiday Home. (Iii). That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law In Treating The Interest Income Of Rs. 6,07,21,269/-.Received From The Bank Deposits By The Assessee Other Than Co-Operative Society Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Read With Section 80P(2)( D) Of The 1. T.Act, 1961 Ignoring The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Totgar Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. Iv) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Registered Under The West Bengal Co- Operative Society Act & Is Not Governed Or - Registered Under The Banking

For Appellant: Md.Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.L.Kochar, Advocate & Shri Anil Kochar

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 2253/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 I.T.O., Ward- 35 (3), -vs.- Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Kolkata Co-op.Credit Society Ltd.,Kolkata [PAN : AABAK 6244 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Md.Usman, CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri S.L.Kochar, Advocate & Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Date of Hearing : 13.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 29.09.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-10, Kolk…

ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata vs. Central Bank of India Employees Cooperative Society Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2203/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri.N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Sri.Waseem Ahmed Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhatacharjee, FCA & Gautam BanerjeeFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl.CIT Sr.DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

…ue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case. In this regard we would like to place reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Excel Industries 358 ITR 295 wherein the principle of consistency has been reiterated. Hence when the issue has been decided by the Jurisdictional High Court no convincing reason has been pointed to take a different view, any deviation is not permitted. 7.3. Now we come to the case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). As regards the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the…

The Cuttack Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CITDR

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(b)Section 143(3)

…19 of the paper book Vol-II and pages 64 to 69 of the paper book Vol-1 and submitted that following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT [1992] ITR 321 (SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC), where it has been held that though res judicata is not applicable to Income Tax Proceedings but consistency should be maintained, the addition should be deleted. 3 6. On the other hand, the DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and argued that as there was violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, as the assessee is carrying o…

Blue Star Ltd (Blue Star Infotech Ltd Now Merged With Blue Star Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Blue Star Limited (Blue Star The Assistant Commissioner Infotech Limited Now Merged Of Income Tax Circle 9(2)(1), बिधम/ With Blue Star Limited) Mumbai. Band Box House, 4Th Floor, Vs. 254-D, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai Maharashtra 400030 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacb6385J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…offered for taxation for AY 2007-08. The same A.O taxed the Sale tax collected in earlier year in the AY 2007-08. As per our considered opinion the Revenue is not entitled to tax the same amount twice, The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [358 ITR 295 (SC)] held that when the rate of tax remain the same and the assessee has paid the tax in the subsequent accounting year then the dispute raised by the Revenue is entirely academic and therefore, there is no need for Revenue to continue with the litigation when it is quite clear that not only it was fruitless but also that it meaning have added a…

Lakshmi Builder & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…de. Further, he submitted, the year of allowance of expenditure becomes immaterial when it is revenue neutral due to same tax rate. In support of such contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., 33 ITR 681 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s ExxonMobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., 328 ITR 17 (Del.); iv) CIT v/s Mahanagar Gas Ltd., 221 Taxman 80 (Bom.); and v) CIT v/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 382 (Del.). 17. Finally, learned Sr. Counsel submitted, though, the assessee is following similar method of accounting w…

ACIT (OSD) - 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…ade. Further, he submitted, the year of allowance of expenditure becomes immaterial when it is revenue neutral due to same tax rate. In support of such contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., 33 ITR 681 (Bom.); 9 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. iii) CIT v/s ExxonMobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., 328 ITR 17 (Del.); iv) CIT v/s Mahanagar Gas Ltd., 221 Taxman 80 (Bom.); and v) CIT v/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 382 (Del.). 17. Finally, learned Sr. Counsel submitted, though, the assessee is following simil…

Safilo India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 588/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Percy Pardiwala/Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar -DR

Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ केकेकेके” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम एवं राम राम लाल राम लाल लाल नेगी लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./588/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर…

Pennozil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7503/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.7386/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2007-08) D.C.I.T -1(2)(2) v. M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. R.No.535 Mercury Meeting Room, 407-408, 5th Floor, 4th Floor, Powai Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Business Park, M.K.Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai-400 020 PAN NO: AAACP 7143 C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.7503/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. v. D.C.I.T -1(2)(2) Mercury Meeting Room, 407-408, R.No.535, 5th Floor, 4t…

DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7386/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehara (Addl.CIT)

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 40A(3)

…ars where the amount of Rs.29,860/- is offered for tax. Thus, when the amount is already offered for tax in AY 2016-17, the addition made be deleted for which reliance is placed in case of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 in which it was held that when the rate of tax remained the same in present A.Y. as well as in subsequent A.Y., the dispute raised by the Revenue is entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect, there is no need for the Revenue to continue with the litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on merits) but also…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd

ITA/250/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14ASection 43B

…the ITAT which, according to the Court, was not ITA No.250/2005 Page 4 of 6 necessary to do so. The issue of duty drawback in any event is answered in favour of the Assessee by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) where it was held that "income accrues when it becomes due but it must also be accompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. Only then can it be said that for the purposes of taxability that the income is not hypothetical and it has really accrued to the Assessee. In the context of that case which concer…