How many judgments cite CIT v. Indian?

70 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Indian (56 ITR 77), spanning 2000 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Indian come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 132, Section 139, Section 145(3), Section 147, Section 250.

CIT v. Indian

56 ITR 77Supreme Court of India1965#1622 most cited

What is CIT v. Indian authority for?

For an indivisible business, expenditure cannot be apportioned between exempt and taxable income. Interest expenditure incurred for business purposes is deductible even if it does not immediately result in income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indian Bank Limited · 56 ITR 77 · Section 36(1)(iii) · Section 10 · interest expenditure deduction · business purpose · exempt income · apportionment of expenditure · indivisible business · income tax deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 132 Section 139 Section 145(3)Section 147 Section 250 Section 36(1)(vii)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditure cross objection section 10 section 250 section 14 india total income business interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…owing a deduction under clause (iii) or (xv) of sub-section (2) of section 10 would be much wider than the one available under sub-section (2) of section 12.” 10.15 The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Limited v. CIT [56 ITR 77] is also found to be relevant in the given facts before us. In the decided case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the interest expenditure had been ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 39 :: incurred for business purpose, then it is not necessary to check whether it had…

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1096/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited (PAN: AAACD 8933 A) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 31.07.2024 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 24.10.2024 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant/ Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R "नधा"रती क" ओर से Smt. Vid…

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3042/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…e above addition to book profit is wrongly made and the same ought to be deleted 7. The Leamed GIT(A) and the Learned Assessing Officer erred in not following the decision of Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan State Warehousing 242 ITR 450 and Indian Bank Ltd 56 ITR 77 in which the Supreme Court had held that the apportionment of expenditure between exempt Income and taxable income arising out of indivisible business cannot be made. Your Appellant submits that the expenses allocated towards the exempt income is contrary to the above decisions of Supreme Court and the said addition of Rs. 18,82,15,764 in the compu…

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3041/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

KOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, COMPANY RANGE II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 204/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:204/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Kothari Sugars and Chemicals The JCIT, Ltd., Vs. Company Range II, 115, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. PAN : AABCK 2495F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by :…

STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2920/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Coferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 10(33)Section 115Section 115A(3)Section 195(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…hich is income in the hands of the assessee; (b) No part of the expenses incurred for the purposes of business of the Appellant can be said to be attributable to earning of dividend income in view of various decisions as under –  CIT v/s. Indian Bank Ltd. - 56 ITR 77(SC)  Rajasthan State Warehousing Corp. v/s. CIT - 242 ITR 450(SC)  CIT v/s. Maharashtra Sugar Mills - 82 ITR 452(SC)  CIT v/s. Industrial Investment Trust Co. Ltd. - 67 ITR 436(Bom) 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the sum of Rs.30,15,52,101/- as relating to access and user of technology related services for its cr…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner of M/s Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6th Floor, Room No…

TD TOLL ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1646/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Td Toll Road Private Ltd., Dcit-15(3)(1) 361, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Room No. 451, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct6395C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Sanghavi Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1646/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.01.2018, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Dcit-15(3)(1)/It-244/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ TD Toll Road Private Ltd., DCIT-15(3)(1) 361, 3rd Floor, North Wing, Room no. 451, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AACCT6395C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Jitendra Sanghavi Revenue by: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date…

HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 4458/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

…that an expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of businessman and not of the revenue. In this context, we draw your attention to the Apex court decision rendered in the case of Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 65 ITR 381. In CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd. - 56 ITR 77. the apex court held that there is no need to examine, whether the expenditure or allowance, which is permissible must be capable of producing taxable income. M/s. Hinduja Group India Ltd., ii) The House of Lords in British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. - (1925) -tax cases 155, has held that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show tha…

MR.M.J ARAVIND,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1991/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 48Section 57

…ulfill some other conditions before it can be allowed. In allowing a deduction which is permissible one need not look beyond the expenditure and see whether it has the quality of directly or indirectly producing taxable income (Reliance on CIT vs. Indian Bank 56 ITR 77 SC). d) We invite your attention to the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore bench in the case of East West Hotels Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle- 11(2), Bangalore ([2006] 9 SOT 48 (BANG.). In this case, the assesse ‘‘as not carrying on any business but had let out its hotel premises to Taj Hotels Limi…

HORIZON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…Builders Ltd., 8 M/s. Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (SC), the following decisions have been relied upon to support the case of the assessee:- i) Bombay Samachar Ltd., 74 ITR 723 (Bom) ii) Walchand and Co. (P) Ltd., 65 ITR 381 (SC) iii) Indian Bank, 56 ITR 77 (SC) iv) Century Flour Mills Ltd., 334 ITR 377 (Madras) v) Agarwal Global Steels Ltd., 141 ITD 76 vi) Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd., 379 ITR 347 (SC) 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand of the lower authorities, which we have already noted in the earlier paragraphs, and is not being repeated for th…

ITO, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA vs. UMESH KUMAR PODDAR, JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…ition made by the Assessing Officer is not in spirit of section 36 of the Act: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd., 53 ITR 140(SC) ii) Madhav Prasad jatia vs CIT, 118 itr 200 (SC) iii) Regal Theatre vs CIT, 225itra 205 (Del) iv) CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd., 56 ITR 77 (SC) v) CIT vs. Madan Lal Jain, 136 ITR 409(Del) vi) Chhail Behari Lal vs CIT, 39 ITR 696 (All) vii) Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT,59ITR 221 (Bom) 10. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “I have perused the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. It is a fact that the ongoi…

INDUCTO STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2555/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Inducto Steel Ltd. Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Cc-38, बनाम/ 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci1045E

Section 14A

…ising from a part of that business is not exigible to tax under the act is not a relevant circumstance." 2.8. In Rajasthan State warehousing Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court after, inter alia, considering its earlier decisions in CIT v. Indian bank Ltd: 56 ITR 77 (SC) 10 and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) laid down the following principles:- "(i) if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income, he is entitled to claim deduction admissible under the respective head whether or not computation under each head results in taxable income; (ii) if income of an assessee arises under any of t…

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5732/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

Section 14ASection 260

…ising from a part of that business is not exigible to tax under the act is not a relevant circumstance." 3.6. In Rajasthan State warehousing Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court after, inter alia, considering its earlier decisions in CIT v. Indian bank Ltd: 56 ITR 77 (SC) and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) laid down the following principles:- "(i) if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income, he is entitled to claim deduction admissible under the respective head whether or not computation under each head results in taxable income; (ii) if income of an assessee arises under any of the h…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMUK SCAN INVESTMENT PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2763/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: N o n e

Section 143(3)

…otional interest is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the first place, deduction of interest on borrowed capital or say on over-draft account is not dependent on whether resulting profit is taxable or not. In CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd., [1965] 56 ITR 77(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it would not be correct to say that if a part of profits of a business was not taxable, no expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning those profits could be allowed as a deduction. Thus, where a bank utilized part of the deposits mobilized by it on investment in tax free securities interest paid on…

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…from one head to another would be completely devoid of merit. 30 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 59. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 77- CIT v/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as…

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4