How many judgments cite CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.?

205 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 293), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 32, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

341 ITR 293High Court2012#443 most cited

What is CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. authority for?

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

205

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. · Section 263 · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner revisionary power · Assessing Officer duty to inquire · revision of assessment order · 2012 Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 203237 CTR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 32 Section 132 Section 153A Section 142(1)Section 14A Section 37

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

csr expenditure section 135 lack of enquiry malabar industrial application of income disallowance under section 14a erroneous and prejudicial capital expenditure section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)liable to tax disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

M/S Prajna Education Trust, Shimoga vs. CIT, Davangere

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

ITA 1389/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.R.Vivek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 263Section 68

…applicable wherein it was held that non-application of mind on the issue, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Furthermore, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 290) has clearly laid down that by exercising power u/s 263, if the order is set aside, there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Hence, order u/s Page 8 of 8 263 is maintainable. Respectfully following the decisions, we hold that the order of the CIT dated 30/07/2013 is valid in law and CIT is justified in exercising revision power u/s 263 of t…

South India Surgicals Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3088/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…filed by the assessee dated 7.10.2014 explaining that there is no enduring benefit received and ISO certificate issued for a period of three years only and relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd 349 ITR 582. But the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concludes that the claim of expenditure is in the nature of intangible assets under provisions of Sec.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Similar to know- how, patents, copyrights and distinguished the judicial decision and confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Commiss…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sobha Renaissance Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 301/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 35(1)(iv)

…hdrawing its declaration u/s IOA(8) without appreciating the fact that there is no such provision under the Income- tax Act 1961 and the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Infosys Technologies Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 598) wherein the issue was of allowance of deduction U/S lOA for the income originally claimed as Capital Gains, is misplaced, as the issue in assessee's case is clearly distinguishable. 3 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds ma…

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)

Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Plot No.1, Income Tax, LTU, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bangalore. Ramangar District. 562 109. PAN: AAACT 5415B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR) Date of hearing : 04.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2016 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by the assessee against…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-6, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ed Ground No.5 before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. The following judicial pronouncements support the claim of the Assessee that the expenditure in question is revenue in nature. 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 349 ITR 610 (Karn); wherein it was held that the amount paid by assessee—company towards subscription for obtaining corporate membership in club is allowable as revenue expenditure 2. CIT VS. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. ITA NO. 13 TO 24 /2002 DATED 21.3.2005; in which the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court agreed with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Gu…

Red Chillies Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5271/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hiru RaiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

…r. In support of his contention that the expenditure incurred on certification is revenue in nature, the assessee relied upon the following decisions. i) CIT v/s Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2012 349 ITR 582 (Kar.); ii) CIT v/s Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 606 (Kar.); iii) CIT v/s Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. [2014] 227 Taxman 173 (P&H); iv) CIT v/s Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 001 (SC); 6. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decisions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the…

Bayer Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 7978/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7978/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष"/Ay.2006-07 M/S. Bayer Cropscience Limited Acit -10(3) Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K. Road Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 076. Pan:Aaacb 9651 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri G.M. Doss Assessee By: S/Shri Paras Savla; Harsh Shah & Viraj Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 14/10/2010 Of The Assessing Officer (Ao),Passed U/S.143(3)R.W. S.144C(13)Of The Act, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Insecticides & Other Chemicals For Plant Protection,Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/11/2006, Declaring Income Of Rs. 51.18 Crores.During The Assessment Proceedings,The Ao Found That Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions (It.S) With Its Associated Enterprises(Aes).So,He Made A Reference To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)To Determine The Arm’S Length Price(Alp) Of Such Transactions. After Receiving The Order Of The Tpo,The Ao Sent The Draft Assessment Order To The Assessee, Who Challenged It Before The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp).The Drp Issue Directions To The Ao Wide Its Order Dated 28/09/2010.In Pursuance Of The Said Directions, The Ao Completed The Assessment, Determining The Income Of The Assessee Had Rs. 59.89 Crores. 2.First Ground Of Appeal Relates To Transfer Pricing (Tp)Adjustments Of Rs. 2.80 Crores.During The Tp Proceedings,The Tpo Found That The Assessee Had Entered Into The Following It.S With Its Aes:

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla; Harsh Shah & Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…the purpose of business, that club membership only facilitated assessee to conduct its business more smoothly and efficiently.He relied upon the cases of Otis Elevators Company (India)Ltd.(195ITR682),Samtel Colour Ltd.(326 ITR 425),Infosys Technologies Ltd. (349 ITR 582).The DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 7978/M/10(06-07)-Bayer Crop Science Ltd. 3.2.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had claimed expenditure towards payments made to club on account of subscription and membership,that the AO decided to disallow the expenditure,that…

M/S. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi vs. DIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2010-11 India Habitat Centre, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lodi Road, Vs. Pratyakash Kar Bhavan, E- New Delhi - 110003 2, Block, 26Th Floor, Dr. (Pan: Aaati0499M) Shyama Prasad Mukherjeemarg, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Ananthraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 27.3.2015 by holding the assessment order dated 7.3.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 293 (Kar.). Thereafter, Ld. CIT(E) set aside the assessment with the directions to the AO to examine the issue in details in view of the Memorandum of Association and Dissolution clause. 4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(E) dated 27.3.2015 passed u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, the assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearin…

Msource(India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 748/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Msource E (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bagmane World Technology Centre, Block B, 1St Floor, Kr Puram, Marathalli Orr, Doddenekundi, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant Pan: Aaccm2097G Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Iii, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIR(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…erify the contention of the appellant that the amounts were offered to tax during the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 293) in support of the contention that when the Page 5 of 10 issue was set aside to the file of the AO, no prejudice was caused to the assessee-company. He, accordingly, passed the order u/s 263 dated 28/3/2014. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee-company is in the present appeal before this Tribunal. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that the am…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s. sAtyam Computer SErvices Ltd

ITTA/200/2011HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit CHS Ltd. Piramal Chambers, v. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAPHS9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7491/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Udaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…upon the Commissioner to revise the order. The provision is intended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. CIT vs Infosys Technologies ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn.), ii. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (FB), iii. CIT vs Leisure wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.), iv. CIT vs Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pat.) vi. CIT vs Rajeev Agnihotri (2011) 332 ITR 608 (P & H), vii. CIT vs DL…

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ompany relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v. Vintec Corpn. (P) Ltd. (2005) 146 taxman 313 (Delhi)(HC) ITA 1994Mum/13 & ITA 2836/Mum/14 7 ii) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) iii) CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd, (2012) 349 ITR 610 (Karn)(HC) iv) CIT v. Nokia Siemens Networks India (P) Ltd. (2011) 14 taxmann.com 84 (Kar )(HC). The assessee company further submitted that in the earlier years , this expenditure was claimed and allowed by the A.O.. Therefore, there is no reason for taking a different view for this assessment year and it is against the ratio laid down by the H…

Ramco Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1949/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Jagadisan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, IRS, CIT

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,’ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1948 & 1949/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-2011 & 2011-12 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam. Corporate Circle-2, Madurai. [PAN AAACR 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. V. Jagadisan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by…

Ramco Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1948/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Jagadisan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, IRS, CIT

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Sri. T.V. Prabhu, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 555/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263Section 54F

…ns made before the CIT. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Kar) has held at paras 27 & 28 of the judgment as follows:- “27. The assessing authority performs a quasi-judicial function and the reasons for his conclusions and findings should be forthcoming in the assessment order. Though it is urged on behalf of the assessee by its learned counsel that reasons should be spelt out only in a situation where…

M/S the Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 565/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…company, exercising his power vested u/s 263 of the IT Act directed the AO to make a disallowance of provision of Rs.99,80,000/- 6 IT No.565(Bang)/2014 and drawn the support of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Infosys Tech.Ltd. Vs 341 ITR 293 in this regard. 6. Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee company is in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the very same issue was considered by the AO during the re-assessment proceedings and he had drawn our attention to page-24,25 of the paper book wherein the questionnaire dated 26-09-2011 issued…

Raychem Rpg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4641/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakar Raoassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Raychem Rpg Pvt. Additional Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, बनाम/ Rpg House, 463, Range-7(2), Vs. Dr. Annie Beasant Road, 6Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacr8032L

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…Shakti Sugars Ltd. (ITA No.411 of 2004)(Mad) ii. ACIT v. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. (150 Taxman 51) (TCHD.) iii. Reliance Footprints Ltd. v. ACIT (63 SOT 124) (TMum.) Expenses for carrying out ISO Certification i. CIT v, Infosys Technologies Ltd. (349 ITR 606) (Kar.) ii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemical Ltd. v. DCIT (45 SOT 37) (TAhd.) iii. ITO vs. Rexnord Electronics & Control Ltd (2009 TIOL 27 ITAT Mum) iv. Climate Systems India Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No 1698/Del/2009) Expenses incurred for Feasibility Study i. CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. (321 ITR 546) (Kar.) ii. CIT v. Priya Village Roadshow Ltd (…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263

…T Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 33. The learned DR from the department had also argued before Tribunal that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry and that revenue. The learned DR had relied upon following decisions:- i. CIT v Infosys Technologies 341 ITR 293 ii. CIT v Hindustan Lever 343 ITR 161 iii. Frick India Ltd. v DCIT 6 ITR 82 iv. Major Metals Ltd. v Union of India 359 ITR 450 v. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT 243 ITR 83 vi. South India Steel Rolling Mills v CIT 224 ITR 654 34. After considering the arguments and submissions of both sides, the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for lA.Y.2009-20…