CIT v. Kirloskar Computer Services

65 SOT 15Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#14329 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysiscorporate guaranteeright to receive

Judgments citing CIT v. Kirloskar Computer Services

The Godavari Sugar Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Bomakesh Pradip Kumar Panda
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Somaiya Properties & Investments Private Limited, (Formerly known as the Godavari Sugar Mills Private Limited), 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 [PAN: AAACT50004A] ……………… Appellant ACIT, Range 2(1), Vs Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee :Sh. Vipul Joshi For the Respondent/Department :Sh. Bomakesh Pradip Kumar Panda Date of conclusion of hearing : 10.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 31.01.202…

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals being ITA No

ITA 5827/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepesh Appellant By Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan Cit(Dr) & Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

…m Oil Co. Ltd. 107 ITR 261 (Cal) • Mahan agar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Addl. CIT 100 TTJ1 (ITAT Delhi) • ITO vs. Evergrowth Telecom Ltd. in ITA No.5652/Mum/07 (ITAT Mumbai) • CIT vs. Kirloskar Computer Services 221 Taxman 391 (Kar) • Idea Cellular vs. ACIT 65 SOT 15 (ITAT Mumbai) • Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. vs. JCIT149 TTJ 673 (ITAT Mumbai) • Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ACIT41 SOT 175 (ITAT Mumbai) • Comsat Max vs. DCIT(2009) 29 SOT436 (ITAT Delhi) • CIT vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd (1994) 206 ITR 112 (Guj) • Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. JCIT81ITD 456 (ITAT Mumbai • Rajasthan State Mines and Manuals Ltd vs. DCIT 4…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: I 15 TTJ 752 (Del ITAT) (TM); ix) Aishwarya Rai v. DCIT: ITA No. 1159/Mum/04: (Mum ITAT); x) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT: 65 SOT 15 (Mum.); xi) Advik Hi tech (P.) Ltd v. AC1T: 67 SOT 158 (Pune). 147. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that where income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherw…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: I 15 TTJ 752 (Del ITAT) (TM); ix) Aishwarya Rai v. DCIT: ITA No. 1159/Mum/04: (Mum ITAT); x) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT: 65 SOT 15 (Mum.); xi) Advik Hi tech (P.) Ltd v. AC1T: 67 SOT 158 (Pune). 147. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that where income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherw…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: I 15 TTJ 752 (Del ITAT) (TM); ix) Aishwarya Rai v. DCIT: ITA No. 1159/Mum/04: (Mum ITAT); x) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT: 65 SOT 15 (Mum.); xi) Advik Hi tech (P.) Ltd v. AC1T: 67 SOT 158 (Pune). 147. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that where income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherw…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…ITA No. 1407 of 2011 (Guj); vii) CIT v. Aspentech India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 1233/ 2011 (Del. HC); viii) JCIT v. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.: I 15 TTJ 752 (Del ITAT) (TM); ix) Aishwarya Rai v. DCIT: ITA No. 1159/Mum/04: (Mum ITAT); x) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT: 65 SOT 15 (Mum.); xi) Advik Hi tech (P.) Ltd v. AC1T: 67 SOT 158 (Pune). 147. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that where income is wrongly offered by an assessee or on previously asserted legal stand, it would not operate as estoppel against the assessee to revise such stand and make a legitimate claim otherw…

Suri Engineers Private Limited., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4)., Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1387/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Suri Engineers Pvt. Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(4), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aaccs8544A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik

For Appellant: Shri V. JagadisanFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)

…(SC). 7 M/s Suri Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. c. Dr. T.A Quershi Vs CIT 287 ITR 547. d. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd., 55 ITR 707 (SC). e. Chenab Forest Co. Vs CIT 96 ITR 568 (J &K). f. CIT Vs Inden Biselers 181 ITR 69 (Madras). g. Idea Cellular Ltd., Vs ACIT 65 SOT 15. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the asset being a capital asset, the capital loss cannot be allowed from the profits of the business as rightly held by the A.O. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, we find that the machinery has been importe…