CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

371 ITR 244High Court#20761 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 43(5)speculative transactionsection 40(a)(ii)corporate guaranteebusiness connectionsection 40(a)(i)section 2(24)(x)permanent establishmentsection 195section 36(1)(va)section 40(a)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

DCIT CIRCLE-2 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S FOODS AND INNS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt.Ltd. 371 ITR 244 (Kar) 7.2 Considering the above, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7.3. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. We find that the case laws referred above duly support the case of the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(…

DY CIT CIRCLE-2 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S FOODS AND INNS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt.Ltd. 371 ITR 244 (Kar) 7.2 Considering the above, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7.3. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. We find that the case laws referred above duly support the case of the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(…

DY CIT CIRCLE-2 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S FOODS AND INNS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt.Ltd. 371 ITR 244 (Kar) 7.2 Considering the above, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7.3. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. We find that the case laws referred above duly support the case of the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(…

DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FOODS AND INNS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of assessee stands allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M.Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt.Ltd. 371 ITR 244 (Kar) 7.2 Considering the above, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7.3 Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. We find that the case laws referred above duly support the case of the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CI…

CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (371 ITR 244) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax