CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.

321 ITR 477High Court2010#1835 most cited

What is CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. authority for?

The court may allow additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery if it is used in the business of any article or thing, even if not directly linked to increasing production capacity.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. · 321 ITR 477 · section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · new machinery · article or thing · operational connectivity

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 144Section 145Section 147Section 80HHCSection 148Section 2(29BA)Section 10B(9A)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)section 153a(b)section 263(2)export oriented unitconvertible foreign exchangesection 142(2c)abatement of assessmentspeculation losssection 80jsection 114section 153a(1)(a)section 144ba

Judgments citing CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.

Jindal Power Limiteed, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incoe Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 199/RPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 151(1)Section 37

…declining the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act. Also, in order to buttress his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Mad.) 9.3 Adverting to the assessee’s claim for deduction of the expenditure incurred on construction of Dam amounting to Rs.70,72,14,643/-, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the amount that was spent on the construction of the dam was an allowable expenditure, however, the assessee while computing its taxable income remaining under a…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Ayishathu Jailani, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

ITA 708/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)

…Ld. Sr. DR submitted that since the present assessee is the co-owner of the same property, the decision of the coordinate bench may be followed. 3. The Ld. AR, on the other hand relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd (321 ITR 477; 01.09.2009) which held that the Tribunal is not bound to follow its earlier decision if such earlier decision does not reflect the correct position of the law. In the said background, Ld. AR relied on various case laws on merits to submit that the land was an agricultural land and therefore, the impugned order was to be upheld. The copies of the…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…ta are not binding. Uol v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6SCC 44 p. 96. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (SC) 198 ITR 297. 11. Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law. CIT v.Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (Mad) 321 ITR 477. 12. As submitted by the same DR to the hon'ble bench hearing the appeal against the assessment in these cases (ITA no. 38, 39, 40/CTK/2007), consisting of the same hon'ble AM, the case of the assessee is not an innocuous one of 'hybrid' system of accounting in the sense in which the concept is generally understood in accountancy, as it is made o…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…ta are not binding. Uol v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6SCC 44 p. 96. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (SC) 198 ITR 297. 11. Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law. CIT v.Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (Mad) 321 ITR 477. 12. As submitted by the same DR to the hon'ble bench hearing the appeal against the assessment in these cases (ITA no. 38, 39, 40/CTK/2007), consisting of the same hon'ble AM, the case of the assessee is not an innocuous one of 'hybrid' system of accounting in the sense in which the concept is generally understood in accountancy, as it is made o…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2009[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…ta are not binding. Uol v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6SCC 44 p. 96. CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (SC) 198 ITR 297. 11. Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law. CIT v.Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (Mad) 321 ITR 477. 12. As submitted by the same DR to the hon'ble bench hearing the appeal against the assessment in these cases (ITA no. 38, 39, 40/CTK/2007), consisting of the same hon'ble AM, the case of the assessee is not an innocuous one of 'hybrid' system of accounting in the sense in which the concept is generally understood in accountancy, as it is made o…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Limited, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2225/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…Appellate Proceedings 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee relied on the above cited decisions. The Ld. CIT(A), concurring with the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s VTM Ltd. (187 Taxman 319) as well as in CIT V/s Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (321 ITR 477) allowed the claim. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. ITA No.2225 /Chny/2017 Our findings and Adjudication 5. We find that in terms of the provisions of Sec. 32(1)(iia), in case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircrafts) which has been acquired and installed after 31.03.2005 by an assessee engaged in the…

DCIT Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1289/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Manoj Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…289/Chny/2019 process and qualifies for deduction u/s 32(1)(iia). The assessee also cited the case laws of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Texmo Precision Castings (321 ITR 481); CIT V/s VTM Ltd. (187 Taxman 319) & CIT V/s Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (321 ITR 477). Considering these decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) also noted that similar favorable view was taken by first appellate authority in the case of Madras Sugars Ltd. which got amalgamated with the assessee and therefore, the additional depreciation would be available to the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. We find that…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata vs. M/S. Damodar Valley Corporation

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/172/2017HC Calcutta17 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…OD-57 ITAT/172/2017 IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No.GA/1455/2017) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Tangri, Adv. Mr. Deepro Sen, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17th November, 2021. The Court : This appeal of revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…the Act to establish operational connectivity of the eligible plant and machinery with the article and thing manufactured by the assessee: • CIT v. VTM Ltd: 319 ITR 336 (Mad) • CIT v. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.: 183 Taxman 257 (Ker) • CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad): • CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) • CIT vs. Diamines & Chemicals Ltd.: 271 CTR 98 (Guj) • NRB Bearings Ltd. vs. DCIT: 133 ITD 306 (Mum ITAT) 10.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) refuted the contentions of the assessee’s counsel. The Ld. CIT (DR) heavily relied upon the findings contained in the assessment order. It…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…the Act to establish operational connectivity of the eligible plant and machinery with the article and thing manufactured by the assessee: • CIT v. VTM Ltd: 319 ITR 336 (Mad) • CIT v. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.: 183 Taxman 257 (Ker) • CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad): • CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) • CIT vs. Diamines & Chemicals Ltd.: 271 CTR 98 (Guj) • NRB Bearings Ltd. vs. DCIT: 133 ITD 306 (Mum ITAT) 10.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) refuted the contentions of the assessee’s counsel. The Ld. CIT (DR) heavily relied upon the findings contained in the assessment order. It…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…of the foregoing, is not liable to be followed (Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 23 (SC); Raghubir Singh (Decd) v. Union of India [1989] 178 ITR 548 (SC); Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. UoI [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC); CIT v. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477. [ [[Discussion 8.5 We have already clarified of the detailed arguments and deliberations by the Tribunal in Vinod V. Chhapia (supra), also noting its’ findings (para 8.3). That being the case, the only course available to us is to decide the issue, regarding the said decision as the only judicial precedent; no other decision by the Tribunal – ot…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./ITA No.132/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 & ITA No.386/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P (अऩीऱाथ…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./ITA No.132/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 & ITA No.386/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P (अऩीऱाथ…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./ITA No.132/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 & ITA No.386/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P (अऩीऱाथ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Subhajit Paul, Agartala

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…uld become unworkable and it would make all assessment orders made on the last day illegal. In the circumstances, respectfully following the principles and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Hi-Tech Aral Ltd. (20- 10) 321 ITR 477, we differ from the decision taken by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) as also decision of Shanti Lai Godawat&Ors. Vrs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ(Jodh) 135. Here, we may specifically mention that in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), though one of us is co signatory in that order still we differ from the said…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Frontier Offshore Exploration (India) Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2016 धनिाजरण वर्ज Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: None
Section 44B

…om the same. After a perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. as also taking into consideration the views expressed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hi Tech Arai reported in 321 ITR 477 (Mad) we are of the view that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2003-043 would no more constitute good law. To err is human. To continue the error is not bravery. If we are to accept the contention of the Revenue that the provisions of sec. 44BB is relating only to the non- I…

ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & I.T.A. No. 386/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited,.................Appellant (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board), Bidyut Bhawan, Sector-II, Block-DJ, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700 091 [PAN:AAACW6953…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & I.T.A. No. 386/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited,.................Appellant (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board), Bidyut Bhawan, Sector-II, Block-DJ, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700 091 [PAN:AAACW6953…

Mahabal Metals Pvt Ltd, Miraj vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 380/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 32(1)(iia)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.380/PUN/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mahabal Metals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 23 & 24, MIDC, Miraj block, Miraj-416410 PAN : AABCM8611K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Sangli ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri N. Ashok Babu सुनवाई की तारीख…

Pravin Kumar Hetamsaria vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol

Appeal is allowed

ITA 314/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2010-11 Pravin Kumar Hetamsaria, V/s. ACIT, Circle-3, Proprietor Pratik Ground Floor, Parmar Automobiles, Old H.B. Building, 54, G.T. Road, Nr. Govt. Bus Road(West), Stand, Patel Chowk, Asansol-71334 Ranchi-834001 [PAN No.AAYPH 0545 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Khetra Mohan Roy, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क…