How many judgments cite CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.?

164 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (404 ITR 1), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 28(iv), Section 41(1), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(ia).

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

404 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2018#601 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. authority for?

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. · 404 ITR 1 SC · Section 28(iv) · Section 41(1) · waiver of loan · loan for capital assets · capital receipt · business income · trading liability · capital liability · taxability of loan waiver

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 3293 Taxmann 32

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 28(iv)Section 41(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14A Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133A Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loan section 28(iv)section 14b section 35abb section 35dd section 41(1)section 41 section 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for business section 43b(b)short deduction of tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 1378/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…e the Tribunal. 37. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue of addition on account of buyback on FCCBs at discount is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions:- • CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1(SC) • Dy. CIT vs Pidilite Industries Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 472(Mum.) • OK Play India Ltd. vs JCIT (ITA No.3402/D/2016 dated 13.01.2020) • ACIT vs M/s KEI Industries Ltd. (ITA No.1433/Del/2014 dated 03.12.2020) 38. He submitted that FCCB means a bond issued by an Indian company expressed in foreign currency. The principal and interest in respect of s…

M/S. Paramount Communictions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 767/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited..................................………………….............Appellant Block-EP, Plot-Y-14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AABCP 9181 H] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata...........................………..…......Respondent Appearances by: Smt. C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Smt. K.M. Gupta, Adv., appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Goulen Hangs…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 2 of the aforesaid appeal is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 3036/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2003-04

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pavankumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 3036/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year 2003-04) Vs. M/s. Tata Power Co. Ltd. ACIT-2(3) Aayakar Bhavan Corporate Centre, B Block Room No. 555 5th Floor, 34, Sant M.K. Road Tukaram Road, Carnac Mumbai-400 020. Bunder, Mumbai-400 009. PAN : AAACT0054A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by Shri Manjunatha Swamy Date of Hearing 09.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned C…

Delhi Call Centers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3817/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Call Centre Private Dy.CIT Limited Circle-7(1), 1-10 Lajpat Nagar-II Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110 024. PAN –AABCD 9233C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against order dated 28.02.2019 p…

Ravindra Arunachala Nadar, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3363/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita N.: 3363/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ravindra Arunachala The Acit, Nadar, V. Non-Corporate Circle 15(1), No.161A, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. Pan: Adfpr1113B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri N. Anush Shanker, Ca & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri V. Balaji, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit

For Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, to bring into tax sundry creditors shown in the name of above persons. The above legal position is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Coiurt in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “For the applicability of section 41(1) of the Act, it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in any assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading 13 I.T.A. No.3363/CHNY/2019 liability incurred by the assessee. Then, subsequ…

M/S. Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 528/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

…ere neither claimed as allowed deduction in computing the income of any year. Therefore, neither Section 28(iv) nor Section 41(1) of the Act are applicable. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 (SC) and Order of Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT vs., Pidilite Industries Ltd., 177 ITD 472, Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics P. Ltd., vs., CIT [2011] 333 ITR 386 (Del.) and Order of ITAT, Delhi E-Bench, Delhi in the case of M/s. OK Play India Ltd., Roz-Ka-Meo Industrial Estate, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat, Haryana vs., JCIT…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 1433/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 3076/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. 2 3573/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0104P अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Adani Wilmair Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the CO. of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1761/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1761/Ahd/2016 With C.O. No.133/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. “Fortune House”, Ahmedabad. Near Adani House Mithakali Cross Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Pan: Aabca8056G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1761/AHD/2016 With C.O. No.133/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. “Fortune House”, Ahmedabad. Near Adani House Mithakali Cross Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad PAN: AABCA8056G (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, &…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1448/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Mahajan -ARFor Respondent: Shri A Mohan CIT-DR

Section 40ASection 40A(9)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI, BENCH “J” BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl CIT Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 PAN AAACM3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl CIT Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 PAN AAACM3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Harish Mahajan -AR For the Revenue : Shri A Mohan CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 23.06.2020 Date of Pronou…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Wasan Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5956/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Barun Kumar, CA

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

…claimed as remission of capital liability. 8. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the issue was a debatable one, but set at a rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra (2018) 404 ITR 1, in such case the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Section 28(iv) of the IT Act does not apply on the present case since the receipts of Rs 57,74,064/- are in the nature of cash or money, and that Section 41(1) of the IT Act does not apply since waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability. It is a matter of record that the Responde…

M/S. Rajshree Builder & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 679/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.679/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Rajshree Builder & Vs. ITO, Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ward-15(2), A.S. Legal, G-8, Jain Bhawan, New Delhi 18/12 Pusa Lane, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN :AAACR4754R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Respondent by Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing 12.02.2020 Date of pronouncement 28.02.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed…

Deepak Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

…tal. According to ld. AR, the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case in CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd., 236 ITR 518. Lastly, he contended that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 (SC), section 28 of the Act has no application since the alleged benefit of the assessee is not in the nature of cash or money and section 41(1) has also no application since there was no cessation of any trading liability. 6. Per contra, it is the submission on behalf of the Revenue that the assessee did not produce any purchase voucher before th…

M/S. Ok Play India Ltd., Haryana vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3402/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…, the amount received on discount of such FCCB was not taxable even according to the decisions relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). 3.5 The Ld. counsel refered to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 1 in the context of section 28(iv) of the Act and submitted that benefit received in form other than the shape of the money arising from the business could only be considered under section 28(iv) of the Act. According to the Ld. 6 ITA No.3402/Del./2016 counsel in the instance case, sum brought to tax represents loans outstanding at the beginning of…

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shcil Services Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…not open to the Revenue to rely on section 41(1) for bringing an amount to tax. iii) Also, as per the judgment of the High Court at Bombay in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT reported in 261 ITR 501 and as subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 404 ITR 1, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act cannot apply to a waiver of debt on capital account. In the present case, it is undisputed that the debt in favour of Mr. Dilip Kulkarni (contractor) was on a capital account. iv) Independent of section 41(1) of the Act, there is nothing in the Act enabling assessment of cessation of a liability as an inc…

Shcil Service Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Alco Chem Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 847/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.847/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Dcit-(1)(1) M/S. Ashok Alco-Chem Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.579, Aaykar Bhavan 406, Sharda Chambers,33 Vs. Mumbai-400 020. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-6876-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. K. Sivaram & Sh. Sashank Dundu- Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Udaya Jakke-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. K. Sivaram and Sh. Sashank Dundu-For Respondent: Shri Udaya Jakke-Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 41(1)

…xpansion, the waiver thereof would constitute capital receipts not taxable either us 28(iv) or u/s 41(1). Reliance has been placed on several judicial pronouncements including the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (404 ITR 1). To support the said fact of utilization, our attention has been drawn to the financial documents of various years as placed in the paper-book. It has been submitted that total expenditure on capital expansion was Rs.1880 Lacs which was financed out of NCD, term loan, working capital loan and internal accruals etc. as evidenced by addition to fixe…

M/S. Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR

Section 28Section 3

…saction has been made in cash or money. Here in this case, assessee has acquired the shares of payment of money. In support, he strongly referred and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 1 (SC) and following other decisions. i) CIT vs. Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 87 (Del.), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) affired by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 404 ITR 1 (SC) iiii) 324 ITR 154 (Bom) Prashant S. Joshi vs.…

M/S. Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR

Section 28Section 3