What is CIT v. Mahendra Mills authority for?

Depreciation that is actually allowed as a deduction is considered, not notionally allowed depreciation. The wording of Sections 32 and 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is specific and unambiguous.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Mahendra Mills?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56), spanning 2008 to 2025.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 139(5).

CIT v. Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56)

Prasidh Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1534/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

…e income that accrurd in British India. Therefore, the depreciation deducted in arriving at the taxable income alme could be taken into account and not the depreciation taken into account for arriving at the world income" (p. 173) In CIT. Mahendra Mills 20001-243 ITR 56 the Supreme Court after reviewing various decisions including those of its own overruled the views of various High Courts which held that actually allowed would Include notionally allowed and approved the views of other High Courts which held that actually allowed means only actually allowed and not notionally allowed. The head note portion succin…

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

…e income that accrurd in British India. Therefore, the depreciation deducted in arriving at the taxable income alme could be taken into account and not the depreciation taken into account for arriving at the world income" (p. 173) In CIT. Mahendra Mills 20001-243 ITR 56 the Supreme Court after reviewing various decisions including those of its own overruled the views of various High Courts which held that actually allowed would Include notionally allowed and approved the views of other High Courts which held that actually allowed means only actually allowed and not notionally allowed. The head note portion succin…

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7965/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

…e income that accrurd in British India. Therefore, the depreciation deducted in arriving at the taxable income alme could be taken into account and not the depreciation taken into account for arriving at the world income" (p. 173) In CIT. Mahendra Mills 20001-243 ITR 56 the Supreme Court after reviewing various decisions including those of its own overruled the views of various High Courts which held that actually allowed would Include notionally allowed and approved the views of other High Courts which held that actually allowed means only actually allowed and not notionally allowed. The head note portion succin…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…r than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying on the cases such as CIT Vs Shri Someshwvar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [177 ITR 443(BOM), CIT Vs Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56(SC) where cases relates to depreciation to be considered as per revised ROI filed whereas circumstances of the present case of the assessee is different as there is no revised return? 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of IO - 11(2)2), Mumbai Vs Dr. Dhruman Desai (in ITA. ITA Nos.207 to 20…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…r than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying on the cases such as CIT Vs Shri Someshwvar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [177 ITR 443(BOM), CIT Vs Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56(SC) where cases relates to depreciation to be considered as per revised ROI filed whereas circumstances of the present case of the assessee is different as there is no revised return? 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of IO - 11(2)2), Mumbai Vs Dr. Dhruman Desai (in ITA. ITA Nos.207 to 20…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…r than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying on the cases such as CIT Vs Shri Someshwvar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [177 ITR 443(BOM), CIT Vs Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56(SC) where cases relates to depreciation to be considered as per revised ROI filed whereas circumstances of the present case of the assessee is different as there is no revised return? 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of IO - 11(2)2), Mumbai Vs Dr. Dhruman Desai (in ITA. ITA Nos.207 to 20…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Subramanyam Thanniru, Nellore vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 348/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Subramanyam Thanniru, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Nellore Income Tax, [PAN No. AQOPT0263A] Central Circle, Tirupati अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 01/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on:…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…attatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT [1984J 150 ITR 460 (Bom) (v). Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj.); (vi). CIT vs. Shri. Someshwar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. [1989]177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed, by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills [2000J 243 ITR 56 (SC) (vii). ITO vs. Cosmic Engg. CO. [1984J 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. All the aforesaid case laws also hold that the CIT has the power to allow fresh claim made by the assessee for the first time even if no revised return is filed as also the duty of CIT to allow deduction sou motu even if not claimed by the 11 I.T.A. No. 302/Chny/20 assessee direc…

Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 698/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 96

…10-2016 and Honourable Supreme Court judgment in case of The Land Acquisition Officer, AP Vs Ravi Santosh Reddy(d) by L.Rs in Civil Appeal No.5647 of 2006. Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore Page 5 of 10 2.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 held that "if the assessee due to ignorance of law and fact offered income as taxable but which is not taxable the department should not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee with regards to law and fact.” 2.10 The procedure of assessment is to assess the correct income of the assessee. 2.11 The Assessee relies on the following case la…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Core Objects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Harman Connected Income-Tax, Services Corporation Pvt. Circle-6(1)(1), Ltd., Bengaluru. Vs. No.3&3A, EOIZ Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadamangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore-560 066. PAN – AACCC 2040 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.570/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Harman Connected The Dy. Commissioner of Services Corporation Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Circle…

R D Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7242/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

…ITA No. 7242/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 1 of 36 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] Assessment Year: 2019-20 R.D Tata Trust ……………….Appellant 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24 Homy Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 [PAN: AAATR8173R] Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, ……………Respondent Mumbai Appearances by P J Pardiwala, Sr Advocate, along-with Madhur Agarwal, Sukh Sagar Syal, T P Ostwal and Indira Anand for the appellant Anil C Singh, Additional Solicitor General, along with Suresh Kumar, Sr. Standing C…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7241/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

…ITA No. 7241/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 1 of 35 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tata Education Trust ……………….Appellant 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24 Homy Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 [PAN: AAATT9835A] Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, ……………Respondent Mumbai Appearances by P J Pardiwala, Sr Advocate, along-with Madhur Agarwal, Sukh Sagar Syal, T P Ostwal and Indira Anand for the appellant Anil C Singh, Additional Solicitor General, along with Suresh Kumar, Sr. Stan…

Sarvajanik Seva Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7240/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

…ITA No. 7240/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 1 of 36 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarvajanik Seva Trust ……………….Appellant Bombay House, 24 Homy Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 [PAN: AAATS1012N] Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, ……………Respondent Mumbai Appearances by P J Pardiwala, Sr Advocate, along-with Madhur Agarwal, Sukh Sagar Syal, T P Ostwal and Indira Anand for the appellant Anil C Singh, Additional Solicitor General, along with Suresh Kumar, Sr. Standing Couns…

Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7239/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

…ITA No. 7239/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 1 of 36 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jamsetji Tata Trust ……………….Appellant 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24 Homy Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 [PAN: AAATJ0095N] Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, ……………Respondent Mumbai Appearances by P J Pardiwala, Sr Advocate, along-with Madhur Agarwal, Sukh Sagar Syal, T P Ostwal and Indira Anand for the appellant Anil C Singh, Additional Solicitor General, along with Suresh Kumar, Sr. Stan…

Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7238/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(3)

…scretion (c)." (page 474) 17. Learned senior counsel submits that these principles have been reiterated time and again by the Hon’ble Courts above. Our attention is then invited to Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Mahendra Mills [(2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: …………The Officer is required to do no more than to advise the assessee. It does not place any mandatory duty on the officer to allow depreciation if the assessee does not want to claim that. Provision for claim of depreciation is certainly for the benefit of the assessee. If it d…

Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7237/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

…ITA No. 7237/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 1 of 36 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tata Social Welfare Trust ……………….Appellant 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24 Homy Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 [PAN: AAATT9834B] Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, ……………Respondent Mumbai Appearances by P J Pardiwala, Sr Advocate, along-with Madhur Agarwal, Sukh Sagar Syal, T P Ostwal and Indira Anand for the appellant Anil C Singh, Additional Solicitor General, along with Suresh Kumar, Sr.…

M/S Karle Internatioal Private Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

ITA/377/2012HC Karnataka07 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 234BSection 260Section 260ASection 70

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.377 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S. KARLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARLE INTERNATIONAL) REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MAHENDRA KARLE No.203/73, TUMKUR ROAD NAGASANDRA VILLAGE BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560022. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6(1), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD R.P. BHAVAN, OPP. RESERVE…

M/S. Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 410/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 80, Scindia House, Ward-14(4), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack3430D Assessee By : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 2(14)Section 40a

…must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee to his rights particularly where some refund or relief is due to assessee." Copy of circular placed on Page 78 of Paper Book. The said circular has been followed giving the reference of the said circular by 243 ITR 56 (41-60) Supreme Court 150 ITR 460 (61-64) Bombay High Court 10 Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd. It will be relevant to state here that the CIT (Appeal) to strengthen his order has cited 2cases where the facts are absolutely different to the appellant's case as in cited cases the "business income" is quite apparent. The learned C.I.T. (Appeal) cited the ca…

CIT v. Mahendra Mills

What is CIT v. Mahendra Mills authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahendra Mills

Prasidh Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

Subramanyam Thanniru, Nellore vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupati

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Core Objects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

R D Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

Sarvajanik Seva Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

M/S Karle Internatioal Private Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi