CIT v. Mehta (P) Ltd.

220 CTR 148High Court2008#23692 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mehta (P) Ltd.

DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2218/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

…derived substantial return on the option deposits from this arrangement, is held to be factually perverse. For this, we may gainfully refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mehta (P) Ltd (220 CTR 148): “5. As regards the contention of the revenue that the three concerns/ companies were under the control and management of the same group of persons and, therefore, warranted application of principles initiated in McDowel& Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), we are of the view that such a contention in the absence of any material in support thereof should…

K Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), `Mumbai

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

ITA 1970/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

…derived substantial return on the option deposits from this arrangement, is held to be factually perverse. For this, we may gainfully refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mehta (P) Ltd (220 CTR 148): “5. As regards the contention of the revenue that the three concerns/ companies were under the control and management of the same group of persons and, therefore, warranted application of principles initiated in McDowel& Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), we are of the view that such a contention in the absence of any material in support thereof should…

Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas, D.R &
Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…a series of other decisions namely; i) CIT vs. Hede Consultancy Co. (P.) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 421 (Bom)(HC) ii) Coromandel Cables Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 346 (Chennai) (Trib.) iii) CIT vs. Mehta (P) Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 104 (Bom) (HC)/ (2008) 220 CTR 148 (Bom)(C) iv) Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 329 itr 222 (P&H) v) F.E. Dinshaw Limited Vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 114 (Bom.) (HC) vi) CIT vs. Walfort Shares & Share Brokers (P) Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that in view of these foregoing arguments and the ratio laid down by various courts the a…

CIT v. Mehta (P) Ltd. (220 CTR 148) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax