CIT v. Ms. Aishwariya K.Rai

127 ITD 204Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#11033 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Aishwariya K.Rai

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…nd Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 33.2. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that the AO cannot be permitted to take a contrary view than taken in the assessment and improve his assessment by adopting a new theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…nd Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 33.2. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that the AO cannot be permitted to take a contrary view than taken in the assessment and improve his assessment by adopting a new theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…nd Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 33.2. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that the AO cannot be permitted to take a contrary view than taken in the assessment and improve his assessment by adopting a new theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…nd Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 33.2. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that the AO cannot be permitted to take a contrary view than taken in the assessment and improve his assessment by adopting a new theory: i. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai, 127 ITD 204 (Mum.) 65 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB) iii. Kwal Pro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 iv. ITO vs. Anant Y. Chaan, 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 v. CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co., 107 ITR 702 vi. Indian Steel and Wire Products…

Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…impugned loss may be a created/ stage managed one. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld D.R is not entitled to impose his own views over that of the AO. In this regard, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aishwarya Rai (127 ITD 204 @ 209) and also on the decision rendered in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (313 ITR (AT) 263) @ 322). The Ld A.R further submitted that the various case laws relied upon by Ld D.R is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the issue in the case of Goodlass Nerolac was related to the year of allowability of expenses.…

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1466/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…R, in an appeal by the assessee is limited to defending the order of the TPO. He cannot do or argue what the TPO could have done but failed to do. For the above preposition, the Ld. AR relied upon the following decision: i) CIT vs. Ms. Aishwariya K.Rai [2010] 127 ITD 204- Mumbai ITAT ii) MCorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) iii) Mckinsey Knowledge Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi - Trib.) iv) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT - Mumbai IT AT - Special Bench [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mumbai) (SB) v) Emission AB- Delhi ITAT- 20/56 SOT 177 vi) ITO vs. Anant Y. Chavan [2009] 126 TTJ…

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6310/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…R, in an appeal by the assessee is limited to defending the order of the TPO. He cannot do or argue what the TPO could have done but failed to do. For the above preposition, the Ld. AR relied upon the following decision: i) CIT vs. Ms. Aishwariya K.Rai [2010] 127 ITD 204- Mumbai ITAT ii) MCorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) iii) Mckinsey Knowledge Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi - Trib.) iv) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT - Mumbai IT AT - Special Bench [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mumbai) (SB) v) Emission AB- Delhi ITAT- 20/56 SOT 177 vi) ITO vs. Anant Y. Chavan [2009] 126 TTJ…

Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Protego India P.Ld, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Protego India Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 665, Midc Complex, Income Tax-15(2)(2), बिधम/ Rabale, Ttc Industrial Area, Room No. 403, 4Th Floor, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacp2657F (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on the following orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal: (i) DCIT, Range-9(1), Mumbai Vs. Envision Investments and Findings Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2138/Mum/2010, A.Y 2006- 07), dated 07.08.2015. (ii) ACIT, Circle-2 Mumbai Vs. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai (2018) 127 ITD 204 (Mum) (iii) ITO Vs. Anant Y. Chavan (2009) 126 TTJ (Pune) 984. P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1268/Mum/2016 A.Y 2012-13 The Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax-15(2)(2) Vs. M/s Protego India Pvt. Ltd. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We are p…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…ay that the addition should be upheld on account of disallowance of purchase, which is not the case of the AO as the AO has added the sales already declared by the assessee. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai [2010] 127 ITD 204 (Mumbai), the Mumbai ITAT at paragraph 4 held the following: "4. ...It is no doubt true that the learned D.R. can make any arguments in support of the stand taken by the Assessing Officer but there are certain inherent limits of his arguments inasmuch as he cannot transgress the boundaries made by the Assessing Officer. In other words, the learn…

CIT v. Ms. Aishwariya K.Rai (127 ITD 204) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax