CIT v. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

298 ITR 149High Court2008#24291 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Computer Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Computer Clinic India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 301-A, Sagar Complex, Ward-6(2), New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacc5384N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rahul Kant, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2022

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(X)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Computer Clinic India Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO, 301-A, Sagar Complex, Ward-6(2), New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110092. PAN-AAACC5384N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rahul Kant, AR Respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.02.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National…

Herrenknecht India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…the issue of disallowance on account of the payment of the employees' contribution which was covered under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act relying on the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 149 (Bom) and held that the amendments to section 43B, on the basis of which relief could have been given to the assessee, were not retrospective. The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the employees' contribution made on account of provident fund, ESI and pension fund for assessment year 2003-04 was on account of delay in payment of the employee…

Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the limited aspects of the ground No

ITA 1017/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Alok Industries Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Tower B, 2Nd Floor Income Tax, Peninsula Business Park Central Circle-6(2), G.K. Marg, Lower Parel Air India Building, Marine Mumbai – 400 013 Drive, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca0201C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…ent of Rs.32,03,547/-. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the issue of disallowance on account of payment of employees' contribution which was covered under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act relying on the decision of this Court reported in 298 ITR 149 and held that the amendments to section 10 M/s. Alok Industries 43B, on the basis of which relief could have been given to the assessee, were not retrospective. The Tribunal held that disallowance of the employees contribution made on account of provident fund, ESI and pension fund for assessment year 2003-04 was on account of delay in payment of…