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.

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

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

ITA 2075/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

…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.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Logitronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4541/Del of 2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT,Circle -15(2), vs M/s Logitronics P. Ltd., New Delhi. 1745, Hardayal Street, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi. PAN: AAACL0281H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil Date of Hearing: 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18.10.2019 ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 21/4/2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ne…

Unisol Infraservices P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7416/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7416/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Unisol Infraservices Pvt. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Gemstar Commercial Tax, Circle-13(1)(1), Mumbai Complex, Ramchandra Lane बनाम/ Extension Kanchapada, Malad Vs. (West), Mumbai-400 064 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcr7857A अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Jd Mistry, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri JD Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50

…ernment Authorities and / or as agreed between the parties for effectively transferring the Liabilities to the Buyer.” 13. Now, we will go through the case law refer by assessee of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC), wherein exactly identical facts are discussed and the relevant facts are as under: - “(a) For the proper appreciation of the issue in the case at hand, we deem it apposite to mention the gist of the facts. The appellant herein is the Department of Income Tax (for brevity 'the Revenue), on the other hand, respondent herein is Mahindra & Mahind…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Firstsource Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4759/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Firstsource Solutions Income Tax Limited 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Mk Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Firstsource Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Solutions Limited Tax 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Malad (W) Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…n to purchase a capital asset does not result in revenue receipt chargeable to tax. We find that the issue under dispute is also squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 302 CTR 213 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- Discussion:— 10. The term "loan" generally refers to borrowing something, especially a sum of cash that is to be paid back along with the interest decided mutually by the parties. In other terms, the debtor is under a liability to pay back the principal amount along with the agreed rate of interest within a st…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Phosphates Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14Section 14A

…are not applicable here in as much as no allowance or deduction has been claimed by the assessee in the past in respect of the bank loan. He further submitted that following case laws supports the proposition canvassed by him.  CIT Vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. (101 Taxmann.com 400)(SC)  CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (102 Taxmann.com 142) (Bombay)  ITO Vs. Wasan Exports (P) Ltd. (106 Taxmnn.com 21)(Del) 4 M/s. Rama Phosphates Ltd. 13. Upon careful consideration we find that the assessing officer in this case has placed reliance upon honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of solid containers…

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Pr. CIT-1, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Dina Bldg., 53, Vs. M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACG1259J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the…

DCIT - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3634/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Industries Ltd Income Tax- 3(3)(1), 812, Raheja Chambers Room No.609, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5096C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Rama Industries Ltd Income Tax- 3(3)(1), 812, Raheja Chambers Room No.609, 6th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5096C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari Assessee by None Date of Hearing 05/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 21/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3634/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissi…

Pawan Kumar Bansal, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 5, Hisar

In the result, captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 2322/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 28

…ld. CIT(A) in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyenger is misplaced and has been wrongly applied. In our considered view that applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Mills Ltd. 404 ITR 1, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 530. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:- 12) The first issue is the applicability of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act in the present case. Before moving further, we deem it…

Sunil Kumar Bansal, Hisar vs. DCIT, Circle Hisar, Hisar

In the result, captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 2321/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 28

Anil Kumar Bansal, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Hisar

In the result, captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 2320/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 28

Tumkur Dcc Bank Limited, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed and the appeal filed for AY

ITA 1/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri P.K Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT (DR)

Section 37(1)

…ec.41(1) cannot be applied here. 15. The Ld A.R submitted that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.28(iv) of the Act to tax the impugned amount. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Commissioner Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (2018)(404 ITR 1) that the benefit or amenity referred in sec.28(iv) should result in cash receipt by the assessee. Since the reversal of NPA provision will not result in cash receipt, the provisions sec. 28(iv) will also not be applicable. 16. He further submitted that the assessee was not liable to tax up to the assessment year 2006-07, since it was entitled to…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pidilite Industries Limited, Mumbai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 7351/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7351/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7352/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(2)(2) M/S. Pidilite Industries Ltd. Room No.674, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Regent Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-4156-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson-Ld.Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms. Vidhi Doshi-Ld.Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms. Vidhi Doshi-Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 154Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…or not, arising from the business as business income. However, the benefit has to be in some form other than in the shape of money, as held by higher judicial authorities. 5.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent decision of CIT V/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [93 Taxmann.com 32] has observed as under: - 10. The term "loan" generally refers to borrowing something, especially a sum of cash that is to be paid back along with the interest decided mutually by the parties. In other terms, the debtor is under a liability to pay back the principal amount along with the agreed rate of interest within a stipulated time. 11.…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3328/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ay only in case of benefits other than the receipt of cash or money. On both the counts, the case of the Revenue fails, and both of these issues are now directly covered by Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd [(2018) 302 CTR 213 (SC)], wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: 10. The term "loan" generally refers to borrowing something, especially a sum of cash that is to be paid back along with the interest decided mutually by the parties. In other terms, the debtor is under a liability to pay back the principal amount along with the agreed ra…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Gopala Polyplast Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1193/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 D.C.I.T, Gopala Polyplast Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. ½, Akansha Apartments, Ahmedabad. Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedbad. Pan: Aabcg1282C

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, A.R

Section 41

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1193/AHD/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 D.C.I.T, Gopala Polyplast Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. ½, Akansha Apartments, Ahmedabad. Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedbad. PAN: AABCG1282C (Applicant) (Respondent) : Revenue by Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R Assessee by : Shri A.L. Thakkar, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT…

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.7417/Mum/2010 & 7369/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2000-01 Cable Corporation of India Limited DCIT, Circle-2(1) 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Laxmi Building,6 Vs. ShoorjiVallabhdas Marg M.K.Road Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 PAN: AAACC2936J (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit Khatri Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Membe…

The ITO, Corporate WD-2(4), Kochi vs. M/S.Team Front Line Ltd, Kochi

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is treated to be allowed

ITA 502/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…Rs.1,59,25,662/- which the assessing officer had added stating that cessation of liability is taxable. The CIT(A) after considering the facts in detail allowed the claim of the assessee based on the latest decision of the Apex Court in Mahindra & Mahindra (404 ITR 1). Regarding the contention of the revenue that loan waived which was not taken for purchase of capital asset would constitute income, as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs T V Sundaram lyengar and Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344), deposit received during the course of business which was no longer repayable was assessed as income. In the…

Tayal Concast (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1216/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2013-14 Tayal Concast (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), C/O Sh. Ashish Agarwal, Adv., Muzaffarnagar 183/2, N.C. Lines, Muzaffarnagar-251001 (Pan: Aabct1327P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 TAYAL CONCAST (P) LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 2(4), C/O SH. ASHISH AGARWAL, ADV., MUZAFFARNAGAR 183/2, N.C. LINES, MUZAFFARNAGAR-251001 (PAN: AABCT1327P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Prem Prakash, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 05.12.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- i) That the order is against law and facts on record. ii) T…

ITO Corporate Ward 2, Madurai vs. Madras Suspensions Limited, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1884/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Guru Bashyam, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate

Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहमपी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1884/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-14 Income Tax officer, Vs. M/s.Madras suspensions Ltd., Door No.3,3rd Cross street, Corporate Ward-2, Madurai. DSP Nagar,Bye Pass Road, Madurai 625 016. [PAN AABCM 2301 A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Guru Bashyam, JCIT,D.R ""यथ" क" ओर…

The ITO, Ward 1(3), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Pavan Construction Co, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 760/RJT/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL;, के सम"। सव"ी राजपाल यादव "या"यक सद"य एवं olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 760 & 761/Rjt/2010 (Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, M/s. Pavan Const. Co., बनाम/ Ward – 1(3), 285, Vrundavan Vs. Rajkot. Society, Kalavad Road, Rajkot. Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Rjt/2010 (in I.T.A. Nos. 760 & 761/Rjt/2010) (Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07)…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…matrix, therefore, the revisional order cannot be said to be justified. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book and also para-4 of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1(SC), CIT vs Fine Jewellery India Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303(Bom.), Moil Ltd. vs CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom.), Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (ITA No.2464/Mum/2013), order dated 24/02/2017. 2.1. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR, Ms. Sunita Billa, defended the revision order by contending that the Ld. Assessing Officer merely examined the profit…