What is CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. authority for?

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.?

349 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (306 ITR 42), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (306 ITR 42)

Euromonitor Research & Consulting India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 970/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.970/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Euromonitor Research & Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Unit N 1503, 15Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bengaluru 560055 .. Appellant Pan : Aacce7021L V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rishi Harlalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.02.2019 Pronounced On : 06.02.2019 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-2, Bengaluru, Dt.15.12.2017, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita.970/Bang/2018 Page - 2

For Appellant: Shri. Rishi Harlalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 40

…ITA.970/Bang/2018 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.970/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Euromonitor Research & Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Unit N 1503, 15th floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bengaluru 560055 .. Appellant PAN : AACCE7021L v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 2(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Rishi Harlalka, CA Revenue by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Heard on : 05.02.2019 Pronounc…

Indecomm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

…n’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and allowed the claim of the Assessee which was made in course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing revised return. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai parabolic Springs 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) has held that the appellate authorities under the Act, were free to consider a claim made by an Assessee even in the absence of a revised return of income and that the requirement for filing a revised return of income as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) is applicable only when a claim is made c…

Haldor Topsoe (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…yer has made a legal mistake in claiming deduction @90% instead of 100%. For this legal claim, the taxpayer relied on the following cases: CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd [2012] 349 ITR • 336 (Bombay) CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) • 14.4.1 The Panel has considered the matter. From the facts mentioned above it is clear that the taxpayer has claimed deduction to the extent of 90% of admissible deduction u/s 10A in the computation of total income. No action has been taken by the taxpayer to make any amendment to the total income by filing a revised computation of inc…

M/S Gmr Energy Trading Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2065/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Gmr Energy Trading Ltd., 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560 025. … Appellant Pan:Aadcg0771C Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Jain, Ca. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.GMR Energy Trading Ltd., 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560 025. … Appellant PAN:AADCG0771C Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sunil Jain, CA. Respondent by : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 14/11/2018 Date of pronouncement : 20/11/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Incom…

The Kangra Central Co-Op Bank Ltd vs. Joint Commisioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Cit(A) Who Also Rejected The Claim Holding That The Claim Had Not Been Made By Way Of Revised Return. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Had Claimed The

For Appellant: Shri Ahwani Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 43B

…f Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. reported at [20141 360 ITR 682 (Delhi) and order of Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-II Vs. Jai Parabolics Springs Ltd. reported at [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A perusal of the assessment order para 5 shows that the factum of payment of bonus/PF is not in dispute so far as the Revenue is concerned. For ready reference, we extract the relevant para : “5. The Ld. AR of the assessee vide para 4 of his letter dated 25.2.2014…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Dirk India Private Ltd., Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 869/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 869/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. On facts, there was nothing to show that the claim entertained by the CIT(A) /ITAT was improper.” (Jai Parabolic 306 ITR 42 (Del.) referred) In the instant case the assessee has made claim of section 80IA and filed all details with AO. The AO has examined the same and then denied it stating that the fly ash is one of the ingredients in manufacture of Pozzocrete. This view of AO is not correct. On examination of composition of Pozzocrete it is observed that fly ash is t…

M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Grower'S Federation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 494/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raokarnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd., No.11, Blue Cross Chambers, Infantry Road Cross, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaak 1189 M Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 8(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 251(1)(a)Section 254Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Karnataka Co-operative Oil seeds growers Federation Ltd., No.11, Blue Cross Chambers, Infantry Road Cross, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant PAN:AAAK 1189 M Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt.Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 04/10/2018 Date of pronouncement : 10/10/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-co-operative society directed against…

The Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…upon the orders of the authorities below. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that assessee-society is entitled for claim of deduction of Rs.50,000/-. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del.) (HC) considering the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 and Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that “there is no prohibition on the power of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arose in the matter and for the just decision of the case.” In this case, the as…

Thye Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…upon the orders of the authorities below. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that assessee-society is entitled for claim of deduction of Rs.50,000/-. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del.) (HC) considering the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 and Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that “there is no prohibition on the power of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arose in the matter and for the just decision of the case.” In this case, the as…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1548/KOL/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

Section 250

…hand was not argued and hence was not dealt by the bench. For the proposition that the assessee can raise a legal argument on jurisdictional issues, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 Del. He reiterated that, DTAA has not been a subject matter before the special bench and that this jurisdictional issue, can be raised by the assessee for the first time before the division bench and that the issue has to be considered on merits. 5 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentation Corpo…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…it could not claim enhanced depreciation. Dissatisfied with the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has relied upon the following decisions in supports of its claim: i) CIT Vs. M/s.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 402; ii) Chicago Pneumatic India ltd. Vs. DCIT, 15 SOT 252 (Bom); iii) JCIT Vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd., 115 TTJ 0752 (Del); iv) Asheesh Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 297 ITR 317 (Del); v) Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. JCI, 108 ITD 80 (Del); vi) SNC Lavalin/Acres Inc. Vs. ACIT, 15 SOT 1 (Del); vii) Kisan Discretionary family Trust Vs. ACIT, 113 TTJ 918 (Ahd…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…it could not claim enhanced depreciation. Dissatisfied with the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has relied upon the following decisions in supports of its claim: i) CIT Vs. M/s.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 402; ii) Chicago Pneumatic India ltd. Vs. DCIT, 15 SOT 252 (Bom); iii) JCIT Vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd., 115 TTJ 0752 (Del); iv) Asheesh Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 297 ITR 317 (Del); v) Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. JCI, 108 ITD 80 (Del); vi) SNC Lavalin/Acres Inc. Vs. ACIT, 15 SOT 1 (Del); vii) Kisan Discretionary family Trust Vs. ACIT, 113 TTJ 918 (Ahd…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…it could not claim enhanced depreciation. Dissatisfied with the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has relied upon the following decisions in supports of its claim: i) CIT Vs. M/s.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 402; ii) Chicago Pneumatic India ltd. Vs. DCIT, 15 SOT 252 (Bom); iii) JCIT Vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd., 115 TTJ 0752 (Del); iv) Asheesh Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 297 ITR 317 (Del); v) Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. JCI, 108 ITD 80 (Del); vi) SNC Lavalin/Acres Inc. Vs. ACIT, 15 SOT 1 (Del); vii) Kisan Discretionary family Trust Vs. ACIT, 113 TTJ 918 (Ahd…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…it could not claim enhanced depreciation. Dissatisfied with the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has relied upon the following decisions in supports of its claim: i) CIT Vs. M/s.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 402; ii) Chicago Pneumatic India ltd. Vs. DCIT, 15 SOT 252 (Bom); iii) JCIT Vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd., 115 TTJ 0752 (Del); iv) Asheesh Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 297 ITR 317 (Del); v) Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. JCI, 108 ITD 80 (Del); vi) SNC Lavalin/Acres Inc. Vs. ACIT, 15 SOT 1 (Del); vii) Kisan Discretionary family Trust Vs. ACIT, 113 TTJ 918 (Ahd…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…it could not claim enhanced depreciation. Dissatisfied with the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It has relied upon the following decisions in supports of its claim: i) CIT Vs. M/s.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 402; ii) Chicago Pneumatic India ltd. Vs. DCIT, 15 SOT 252 (Bom); iii) JCIT Vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd., 115 TTJ 0752 (Del); iv) Asheesh Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 297 ITR 317 (Del); v) Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. JCI, 108 ITD 80 (Del); vi) SNC Lavalin/Acres Inc. Vs. ACIT, 15 SOT 1 (Del); vii) Kisan Discretionary family Trust Vs. ACIT, 113 TTJ 918 (Ahd…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the relevant extract is reproduced below:- ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 47 “24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 / 172 Taxman 258 . The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the D…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘KSFC Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent PAN:AAACK 9480 H Appellant by : Shri A.C.Raju, CA. Respondent by : Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 18/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the o…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…o the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal u/s 254. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42. The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the Division Bench held tha…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,इ"दौर "यायपीठ ,इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी कुल भारत, "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 to 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 to 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN: AADCM7525Q आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 571/Ind/2014, 205/Ind/2016 & 20…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 533/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,इ"दौर "यायपीठ ,इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी कुल भारत, "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 to 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 to 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN: AADCM7525Q आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 571/Ind/2014, 205/Ind/2016 & 20…

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

What is CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

Euromonitor Research & Consulting India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

Indecomm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

Haldor Topsoe (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S Gmr Energy Trading Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

The Kangra Central Co-Op Bank Ltd vs. Joint Commisioner of Income Tax

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Dirk India Private Ltd., Nashik

M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Oil Seeds Grower'S Federation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8(1), Bangalore

The Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

Thye Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore