CIT v. IBM Global Services India P. Ltd.

366 ITR 293High Court2014#20624 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. IBM Global Services India P. Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.657/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant V RBL Bank Ltd., Commissioner of Income s 179 E Mahaveer, Tax,Kolhapur. E Ward Shri Shahu Market Yard, Maharashtra – 416005. PAN: AABCT3335M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri S. Sriram & Shri Samyak Lohade Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri Date of hearing 17/09/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER D…

Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Jain (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(1), Vinodkumar Jain (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, 1306, Panchratna, Vs. Tardeo Road, Opera House, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabhv 7626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2016

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 43A

…not justified in not allowing the loss of Rs.8,63,047.” 10. The Ld. A.R. has brought our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case styled as “CIT & another vs. IBM Global 7 Vinodkumar Jain (HUF) Services India P. Ltd.” (2014) 366 ITR 293 (Karn) and stated that the above findings of the Tribunal (supra) have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. Respectively relying upon the above decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.3 11. The AO, noted that assessee had reported 34% yield of finished goo…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 14A

…be entitled to enquire or investigate as to whether the said expenditure was actually incurred by the businessman. If it is incurred wholly and exclusively for business consideration, a purpose. 17.1 In the case of CIT vs. IBM Global Services India P. Ltd, 366 ITR 293, the Karnataka High Court held as under:- ‘’As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the assessee had paid consideration to the transferor company. While filing the returns, the said transaction has been disclosed by the assessee and claimed it as revenue expenditure. In the instant case, insofar as payment for getting domestic cus…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT
Section 14A

…be entitled to enquire or investigate as to whether the said expenditure was actually incurred by the businessman. If it is incurred wholly and exclusively for business consideration, a purpose. 17.1 In the case of CIT vs. IBM Global Services India P. Ltd, 366 ITR 293, the Karnataka High Court held as under:- ‘’As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the assessee had paid consideration to the transferor company. While filing the returns, the said transaction has been disclosed by the assessee and claimed it as revenue expenditure. In the instant case, insofar as payment for getting domestic cus…

CIT v. IBM Global Services India P. Ltd. (366 ITR 293) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax