What is CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. authority for?

Income tax law intends to avoid double taxation, and where an item is brought to tax in one form, appropriate relief or adjustment should be provided to prevent its taxation again in another form. This principle is applicable when considering government grants or subsidies included in income and their impact on the actual cost of assets for depreciation.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.?

93 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (66 ITR 710), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(24)(xviii), Section 36(1)(va), Section 142(1), Section 143(1)(a), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (66 ITR 710)

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

…under the remand directions of the learned Tribunal. 46. Mr. Aravind relied upon certain judgments also in support of his submissions which are also briefly discussed below. 47. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the Income Tax Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of the questions raised Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Co…

M/S. Shristi Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 57

…hould be considered to be pre- operative in nature requiring capitalization. In support of such alternative plea, the Ld. AR for the assessee drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. 66 ITR 710. Having considered the ratio laid down in this judgment, the alternate claim raised by the assessee is maintainable. In the judgment relied on by the Ld. AR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope, ambit and power of the Tribunal to consider and decide upon the issues which were not raised before the departmental authorities. In that judgm…

Shri Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4) Now Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 700/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…ttled now that while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal need not confine itself to the grounds which are set forth in the appeal memorandum or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Indeed, in the case of CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710, the Supreme Court described the Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction in the widest terms possible saying that all questions, whether of law or of fact, which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal and there is nothing in the Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of the questions raised before the d…

Rajeevkumar Hariprasad Tulsiyan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3093/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…ttled now that while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal need not confine itself to the grounds which are set forth in the appeal memorandum or taken by leave of the Tribunal. Indeed, in the case of CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710, the Supreme Court described the Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction in the widest terms possible saying that all questions, whether of law or of fact, which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal and there is nothing in the Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of the questions raised before the d…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bombay (1967) 63 ITR 232 (S.C.) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-1, Vs Gilbert & Barkar Manufacturing Company, USA (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom). (iv) D.M. Neterwalla vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1980) 122 ITR 880 (Bom). The ld. A.R further to support his contention that because of the failure on the part of the A.O to strike off the irrelevant default in the bo…

Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 738/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…same is revenue in nature. Principle has been laid down in the following judicial pronouncements for determining the nature of expenditure as capital and revenue.  Empire jute Co. Ltd. v.CIT (124 ITR 1(1980) (SC)  CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited (66 ITR 710)(SC)  CIT V. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Lid. (214 ITR 523) (Bom)  New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd, v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 338) (Bom)  PCIT v. Sesa Resources Ltd. (250 Taxman 182) (Bom)  CIT vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. (304 ITR 84(Mad)(HC)  Commissioner of Income-tax vs. MAC Charles (India) Lid. (60 taxmann.com 68) (Kar)  M/s. Sprang & Associates v…

Shriniwas Shriteju Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2058/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2058/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Shriniwas Shriteju Sharma, Ito 19(1)(4), Mumbai (Prop. Seema Engg. Co.), Opp D/3/44, 1 St Floor, V. Shri. Ganesh Chs, Near Vakola Bridge, Near Dhobi Ghat, Santacruz(E) , Mumbai -400098 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aajps0743F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Malvika BajajFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…f accounts were produced before the authorities below. The learned DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 232(SC) and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Textiles Mills Ltd. 66 ITR 710(SC) to contend that the issue may be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits including verifying the genuineness of these vouchers which are submitted by the assessee now before the tribunal as an additional evidences. The Ld. AR on the other hand in rejoinder submitted that the Revenue has not come in an appeal before the tribunal ag…

Langar Committee Hanuman Mandir, Malerkotla vs. Income Tax Officer, (Examption), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 516/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As)For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Langar Committee Hanuman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandir, Malerkotla. (Exemptions) Ward, Jalandhar. [PAN:AAAAL 2080Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As) Respondent by: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR) Date of hearing: 21.12.2017 Date of pronouncement: 15 .03.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…purchase of new DG sets but were only of repair and maintenance of existing DG sets. Our attention was also drawn to copy of bills enclosed at Paperbook Page 69-72. Reference was also made to following case laws : a. CIT vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited 66 ITR 710 (SC) b. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. 197 Taxman 76 (Delhi HC) c. CIT vs. Chowgule And Co.Pvt. Ltd. 214 / ITR / 523 (Bom) d. CIT v. Gitanjali Mills Ltd. 265 ITR 681 (Mad) e. Nathmal Bankatlal Works Co. Ltd. v CIT 122 ITR 168 (AP HC) f. CIT v. Janakram Mills Ltd 275 ITR 403 (Mad) 26. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authoriti…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…purchase of new DG sets but were only of repair and maintenance of existing DG sets. Our attention was also drawn to copy of bills enclosed at Paperbook Page 69-72. Reference was also made to following case laws : a. CIT vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited 66 ITR 710 (SC) b. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. 197 Taxman 76 (Delhi HC) c. CIT vs. Chowgule And Co.Pvt. Ltd. 214 / ITR / 523 (Bom) d. CIT v. Gitanjali Mills Ltd. 265 ITR 681 (Mad) e. Nathmal Bankatlal Works Co. Ltd. v CIT 122 ITR 168 (AP HC) f. CIT v. Janakram Mills Ltd 275 ITR 403 (Mad) 26. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authoriti…

DCIT, Madurai vs. Pandyan Hotels Limited, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1020/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kurian Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: 02.08.2017

Section 142ASection 143(3)

…ogical meaning of the expression ‘current repairs’. In other words, even if the expenditure is revenue in nature, it may not fall in the connotation of “current repairs”.’ It distinguished its’ earlier decision in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), explaining that if ‘current repairs’ was to be understood as including replacement, s. 31(i) will become completely redundant and absurdity will creep in because repair implies existence of a part of a machine which has malfunctioned, which is impossible in case of such replacement (pg. 209). The same stood affirmed in CIT v. Sri Mangayarkar…

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M

Section 143(3)

…Mills P. Ltd [206 Taxman 123] (P&H) 4. CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd [202 ITR 942] (Guj) 5. New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing CO. Ltd. Vs. CIT [30 ITR 338] (Bom) 6. CIT Vs. Chogule and Co. Ltd. [214 ITR 523] (Bom) 7. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills [66 ITR 710] (SC) 49. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessee before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) made detailed submissions along with details of expenditure incurred by it and submitted that the expenses incurred by the Assessee during the year are similar to that of expenses incurred in earlier years. The exp…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M

Section 143(3)

…Mills P. Ltd [206 Taxman 123] (P&H) 4. CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd [202 ITR 942] (Guj) 5. New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing CO. Ltd. Vs. CIT [30 ITR 338] (Bom) 6. CIT Vs. Chogule and Co. Ltd. [214 ITR 523] (Bom) 7. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills [66 ITR 710] (SC) 49. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessee before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) made detailed submissions along with details of expenditure incurred by it and submitted that the expenses incurred by the Assessee during the year are similar to that of expenses incurred in earlier years. The exp…

Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cement thereof, in our opinion, was revenue in nature, which is allowable as deduction under section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become unsuitable for its use, is replaced by something, which makes it possible for the existing set up to function efficiently, the cost incurred on such replacement would be revenue expenditure. We also draw suppor…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cement thereof, in our opinion, was revenue in nature, which is allowable as deduction under section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become unsuitable for its use, is replaced by something, which makes it possible for the existing set up to function efficiently, the cost incurred on such replacement would be revenue expenditure. We also draw suppor…

M/S. Vaildor Capital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1979/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T.M. Shivakumar, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 92C

…. Pooran Mall & Sons, 96 ITR 390 (SC) (v). PV Doshi vs. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (Guj) (vi). CIT vs. Continental Commercial Corp. , 110 ITR 170 (Mad) (vii). Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 (SC) (viii). CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills, 66 ITR 710 (SC) (ix). NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) (x). Stream International Services (P) Ltd. vs. ADIT, ITA 8997/Mum/2010 (xi). GE BE (P) Ltd., 164 TTJ 40 (Bang) (xii). Navisite India Private Limited (ITA No. 5329/De./2012) (xiii). Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd. (ITA 4620/Del./2011) (xiv). Verizon India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2766/Del./2010) (xv). Lubri…

Cyfast Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…d the learned Senior A.R. to address on the question of negative net worth held by the ld. CIT(A) to be taken as zero. Thus the prescription of Rule 11 is fully satisfied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [(1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC)] has held that if the assessee’s contention is rejected on one ground, the Tribunal is empowered to allow relief if it is available on other ground so long as the subject matter of appeal remains the same. The same analogy applies with full force to the denial of relief by the AO wrongly under one provision, which ought to be have been done u…

Sensient India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4796/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2010-11) M/S. Sensient India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito-8(3)(1), Mumbai 103/104, Antariksh (Thakur House) (Respondent) Marol, Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059. Pan : Aafcs5952D (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : (A.Y : 2010-11) M/s. Sensient India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-8(3)(1), Mumbai 103/104, Antariksh (Thakur House) (Respondent) Marol, Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059. PAN : AAFCS5952D (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap Date of Hearing : 03/08/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 01/11/2016 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 30.5.2014 for Assessment Yea…

ACIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. Mahesh A. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1063/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1063/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Astt. Commissioner Of Shri Mahesh M. Doshi बनाम/ Income Tax Central Circle 01, Natraj, 34, V.P.Road, Vs. 17 & 28 Vile Parle (West) Room No.401, 4Th Floor, Mumbai - 400056 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpd9701C

For Appellant: Shri S.C.TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Mallik Arjun Uttire

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…did not file the appeal and cross objection but in view of the rule 27 of the Act, he can raise the question at the time during the appeal of the filed A.Y.2002-03 by the revenue also. In view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) and CIT Vs. Bandaru Subbarao (1996) 85 taxman 631, 633 (AP) the legal question can be raised at anytime. Since no new material was found in relation with the assessee then no doubt the case of the assessee is not required to be opened in view of section 153A of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that this issue is squarely covered by the…

M/S. Spinks Impex, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 480/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 39(3) & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Spinks Impex, C/O- M.K. Bhatt Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. & Co., Ca, 302, E 10/12, Triveni Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi Complex, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aaxfs9150Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.K. Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Dated 03/01/2013 & 20/11/2013 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-Xxviii, New Delhi For Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. The Grounds Raised In The Both The Appeals Are Common & Consolidated Order.

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37Section 80I

…by the lower authorities and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of National Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). 4. 3.1 The Ld. Senior DR, on the other hand, did not oppose admission of the additional ground. 3.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the ground raised by the assessee is in the nature of a legal claim as an alternative to the other grounds raised by the assessee. In view of the judgments ci…

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.