CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.

140 ITR 705High Court1983#1219 most cited

What is CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Tax litigation is not an adversarial process; the Assessing Officer and Tribunal have a duty to determine the assessee's correct taxable income. A valid claim, such as an exemption, cannot be denied merely because it was not explicitly made by the assessee.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. · 140 ITR 705 · non-adversarial tax litigation · AO duty correct income · Tribunal plenary jurisdiction · claim not denied · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 144 · Section 263 · correct taxable income · tax litigation nature.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 144Section 153ASection 68Section 263Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 124(3)(a)section 124(3)section 124section 271aabstatement under section 132(4)retracted statementsurvey under section 133asection 131(1a)section 40adumb documentssection 271aa

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.

Measage Gravita Metal Inc, Kathua vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1(4), Kathua

ITA 587/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)

…ted part relief to the assesse by observing as under: 4.7. I am also of the considered opinion that the first appellate authority ought to consider the issue on merits. Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983)140 ITR 705 (Madras), observed that unlike a law suit in civil appeals, in tax litigation, it cannot be treated as a "lis" between two rival parties but the job of the Assessing Officer is to arrive at the correct taxable income. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the income becomes taxable on the footing of accrual only when the right to receive the…

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…has validly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Hence, the order passed should be upheld. In support, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 84(SC) 2. CIT vs Indian Express (Mdurai) Pvt. Ltd. 140 ITR 705(Mad) 13. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, neither in the show-cause notice, nor in the order passed under 25 AY: 2016-17 section 263 of the Act, the CIT has sought to make out a case that the Assessing Officer had erred in not examining or verifying the limited scrutiny issue, i.e whether the value of international tra…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…which had not been raised either before the Income-tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2016 32. A similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705. The Madras High Court has also said that the primary purpose of the Income- tax Act is to levy and collect income-tax and the purpose of the statutory provisions, especially those relating to the administration and management of income-tax, is to ascertain the tax liability correctly. The various provision relating to appeal, reference, etc., ca…

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

M/S. K.G.Agro Processor Pvt.Ltd, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 663/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu
Section 143

…d income tax proceedings involving evidence to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in former as compared to reasonable preponderance only in latter proceedings; respectively. We further deem it appropriate to quote CIT vs. Indian Express(Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.(1983)140 ITR 705 (Mad.) that proceedings under the provisions of the Act are not adversarial in nature since their purpose is to determine correct tax of the concerned assessee only. We conclude in light of the forgoing facts that both the lower authorities have erred in law and facts in making the impugned addition(s) of undisclosed toll receipts of Rs.6,05,47,…

M/S. K.G.Agro Processor Pvt.Ltd, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 662/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu
Section 143

…d income tax proceedings involving evidence to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in former as compared to reasonable preponderance only in latter proceedings; respectively. We further deem it appropriate to quote CIT vs. Indian Express(Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.(1983)140 ITR 705 (Mad.) that proceedings under the provisions of the Act are not adversarial in nature since their purpose is to determine correct tax of the concerned assessee only. We conclude in light of the forgoing facts that both the lower authorities have erred in law and facts in making the impugned addition(s) of undisclosed toll receipts of Rs.6,05,47,…

Manjeet Singh Bali, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5384/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…s of assessment made by the assessing officer on the basis of the agreement made by the authorized representative and consequently he cannot be denied the right of vindicating his grievance before a higher forum. CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) (P) Ltd.(1983) 140 ITR 705 (Mad applied). 8. Because section 50C(1) uses word ‘Deemed’. We refer to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. vs. Coffee Board (198) 3 SCR 625 whereat it has been held that “A legal fiction can be utilized in several ways wherein the word “deemed” is used. However, the mere use of the word “deemed” is not itself suff…

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Assessment years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indianoil Skytanking Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Fuel Farm Facility, of Income Tax, Bangalore International Airport, Circle 3(1)(1), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 300. PAN: AABCI 5709C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.05.2022 Date of Pronounc…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

…IT(TP)ANo.525 /Bang/2019 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.525/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. JCIT (LTU) No.66/3, Bagmane Tech Park Bengaluru Vs. C V Raman Nagar Post Bengaluru 560 093 PAN No: AAACT5445M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.275/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) JCIT (LTU) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 093 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant…

M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

…IT(TP)ANo.525 /Bang/2019 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.525/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. JCIT (LTU) No.66/3, Bagmane Tech Park Bengaluru Vs. C V Raman Nagar Post Bengaluru 560 093 PAN No: AAACT5445M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.275/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) JCIT (LTU) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 093 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant…

DCIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Goldman Sachs (India) Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""य…

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Goldman Sachs (India) Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.CIT-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAFCA6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""य…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Limited, Tirupur

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2228/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 07.07.2021
Section 143(3)

…of the provisions of section 37 of the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon the following judicial precedents:- 1. CIT Vs.Express Hotels P.Ltd ( 281 ITR 160) (Guj) 2.CIT Vs. Ice Suppliers Corporation (64 ITR 195(P&H) 3.CIT Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) (140 ITR 705)(Mad) 4.CITVs. Mahalakshmi Textile MillsLtd.(66 ITR 710)(SC) 7. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT., Chennai in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14 & 2016-17, where the T…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Limited, Tirupur

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 07.07.2021
Section 143(3)

…of the provisions of section 37 of the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon the following judicial precedents:- 1. CIT Vs.Express Hotels P.Ltd ( 281 ITR 160) (Guj) 2.CIT Vs. Ice Suppliers Corporation (64 ITR 195(P&H) 3.CIT Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) (140 ITR 705)(Mad) 4.CITVs. Mahalakshmi Textile MillsLtd.(66 ITR 710)(SC) 7. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT., Chennai in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14 & 2016-17, where the T…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Elgen (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…a necessary finding of the High Court which could not be brushed aside by saying that that was not the issue before it. Regarding the ratio and dicta of a judgment, he cited the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Indian express (Madurai) (P.) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 . He finally submitted that observations of the Delhi High Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s case (supra) about the taxability of interest income were apt and apposite and the view taken was not contrary to the decisions of other High Courts. At one stage he had also cited another decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's favour fro…

Ajaz Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 786/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…peal. In support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: • High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. • Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt., [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad.) 7. Cross objections Further, it is humbly submitted that, the fact that the assessee has withdrawn the admission of additional income of Rs. 26 crores is also agreed by the AO which fact can be evidenced from the cross objections filed in Ground 3. "3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/- by giving credit for…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…orities, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka, 2004 SCC Online Kar 142 (Kar) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd., 66 ITR 710 (SC) CIT v. Mitesh Impex, 367 ITR 85 (Guj) CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) P. Ltd., 140 ITR 705 (Mad) CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd., 2016-TIOL-292-HC-MUM-IT (Bom) 70. Therefore, it was submitted that the lower authorities have erred in wrongly applying the ratio of Goetze case and denying the claim of Appellant. 71. As regards, principles of consistency, the ld. AR submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in taking double in…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…orities, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka, 2004 SCC Online Kar 142 (Kar) CIT v. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd., 66 ITR 710 (SC) CIT v. Mitesh Impex, 367 ITR 85 (Guj) CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) P. Ltd., 140 ITR 705 (Mad) CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd., 2016-TIOL-292-HC-MUM-IT (Bom) 70. Therefore, it was submitted that the lower authorities have erred in wrongly applying the ratio of Goetze case and denying the claim of Appellant. 71. As regards, principles of consistency, the ld. AR submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in taking double in…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…onsidering a point which arises out of the appeal merely because such point had not been raised or urged by either party at the earlier stage of the proceedings. Some of these decisions, only to name a few, are CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) (P.) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad.), CIT v. AC Paul [1983] 142 ITR 811 (Mad.) and CIT v. Ice Suppliers Corpn. [1967] 64 ITR 195 (Punj.). In fact, the jurisdictional High Court has explained the ratio in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. (supra) very elaborately. It has particularly explained the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd.…