CIT v. M.L. Sanghi

203 ITR 54High Court1993#7327 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)dividend distribution taxsection 10(34)section 57long term capital gainsdisallowance u/s 14along term capital gainsection 14asection 10income from other sourcesappeal before the tribunalprevious year

Judgments citing CIT v. M.L. Sanghi

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L., Sanghi [1988] 170 ITR 670." (iii) Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Col.) , it was observed as under: "In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner's contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 102/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Cit(A)?

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250(6)

…ift Tax v. J.K. Jain - (1998) 230 ITR 839, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Kumar - (1995) 212 1TR 238, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. - (1994) 206 ITR 727, Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. - (1993) 203 ITR 54, Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.C. Joshi & B.C. Joshi - (1993) 202 ITR 1017 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy - (1957) 32 ITR 466). Therefore, so far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that the issue was a debatable one. 12 . In view of the above submissions, in our considered vie…

M/S. HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2015-16 Harman Connected Services Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.3 & 3/A, EOIZ Industrial Circle 3(1)(2), Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Bengaluru. Sadarmangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN: AABCG 5658E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.09.2022…

M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2011-12 Atria Convergence Technologies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Special Range 1, Indian Express Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AACCA 8907B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA Respondent by : Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant…

SULZER PUMPS INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, Shri Sushil Kr
Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92CSection 95D

…h Court are binding on the Sub-ordinate courts, authorities and Tribunal situated within its jurisdictional territory as held in Taylor vs. CIT 232 ITR 771; CGT v Jain 230 ITR 839; CIT v Sunil Kumar 212 ITR 238; CIT v Thana Elec 206 ITR 727; Indian Tube v CIT 203 ITR 54; CIT v Joshi and Joshi 202 ITR 1017. CIT v Highway 217 ITR 234; CIT v Maganlal 210 ITR 580. The above additional ground is a purely legal one and following the decision in NTPC v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit it for adjudication. Further in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that: “24. The legislative history b…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6088/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo International Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 303, Dlf Court Yard, Circle-3(1), Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaaca6447N Assessee By : Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate Deptt. By : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr (Appellants) (Respondents) Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St August, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.37,32,000/- Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income- Tax.” 3. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Export Of Tyres, Tubes, Flaps, Leather Garments & Leather Accessories, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.9,47,07,931/-. The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Made Disallowance Of Rs.37,32,000/- On The Ground That The Assessee Has Suo Motu Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.8,17,000/- Only As Against The Disallowance As Per Section 14A Of The Act R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 Which Comes To Rs.45,49,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Manu K. Giri, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…e Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.I, Sanghi [1988] 170 ITR 670." (iii) Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Col.) , it was observed as under: "In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner's contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6118/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Manu Kr. Giri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Sethi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…e Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.I, Sanghi [1988] 170 ITR 670." (iii) Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Col.) , it was observed as under: "In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner's contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Apollo International Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Dlf Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Courtyard, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaaca6447N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “I-1”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Apollo International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, Office No. 303, 3rd Floor, DLF Circle-3(1), C.R. Building, Courtyard, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACA6447N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 09.04.2019 Date of pronouncement 12.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment orde…

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670.” (iii)Indian Tube Company Ltd. V. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Cal.) , it was observed as under: “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670.” (iii)Indian Tube Company Ltd. V. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Cal.) , it was observed as under: “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670.” (iii)Indian Tube Company Ltd. V. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Cal.) , it was observed as under: “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

KARE ELECTRONICS & DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 799/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kare Electronics & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Flat No.101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Circle – 11(5), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aabck 7679 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…he Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670.” (iii)Indian Tube Company Ltd. V. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Cal.) , it was observed as under: “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

M/S PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2526/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Pranava Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Ward – 5(1)(3), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aadcp 2196 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Girija, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670.” (iii)Indian Tube Company Ltd. V. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Cal.) , it was observed as under: “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

J V HOLDINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1337/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. J. V. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1St Floor, Embassy Point, Income-Tax, 150 Infantry Road, Circle – 4[1][1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcj 9763 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Seetharam, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Seetharam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670.” (iii)Indian Tube Company Ltd. V. CIT & others (1993) 203 ITR 54 (Cal.) , it was observed as under: “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s contention by stating that, although the Calcutta High Court had held that an assessee was entitled to interest on such refund calculated up to the date of the order passed consequent upon an appeal or revision of the original assessment, this…

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT M/s Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5th Floor, 1st Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. AB Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAFCA2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से…

CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (203 ITR 54) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax