CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.

33 ITR 681High Court1958#590 most cited

What is CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. authority for?

An addition to income is revenue neutral if its tax impact remains the same regardless of the year in which it is assessed. Assessments should not dispute the year of addition when the tax rate and impact are consistent, to avoid unnecessary disputes and potential loss to revenue.

165

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. · 33 ITR 681 · revenue neutral · timing difference · pragmatic view · year of addition · impact of tax · loss to revenue · permissible deduction · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 194HSection 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 211section 145(2)project completion methodsection 35dpercentage completion methodsection 21written down valuemercantile system of accountingretracted statementsection 35section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amjay Medimza (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 289/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, M/S Amjay Medimax(India) Pvt. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad 4Th Floor, Max House, Opp. Karnavati Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006 Pan : Aabca8241R

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…he Revenue to continue with this litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on merits) but also that it may not have added anything much to the public coffers." 2.5 The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.[1958] 33 ITR 681 has held as under: "3. We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 732/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Sistema Shyam Circle-23(2), Teleservices Ltd, New Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs1709H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ill issues are raised and much outcry is made for nothing.” 15. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Kumar Goel (supra) had quoted the following passage from the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom) :- “We have often wondered why the Income tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the income tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax charg…

Audience Measurement and Analytics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1163/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1163/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Audience Measurement & The Dcit बनाम/ Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1 Vs. 601, Shahpath-Ii, Opp. Ahmedabad Rajpath Club Sg Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 3984 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Krupesh Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Krupesh Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 194C

…Accordingly, there was no loss to the Revenue if prior period expenses claimed in the year under consideration. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co.Ltd. reported in 33 ITR 681 (Bom) wherein it was held as under: “We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be materia…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 7085/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…972/Del/15 AY 2010-11 1787/Del/16 AY 2011-12 7085/Del/17 AY 2012-13 Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT-LTU Before we part with, We are reminded of a classic observations by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of the CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., reported in (1958) 33 ITR 681, which reads as under: “We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rat…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1787/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…972/Del/15 AY 2010-11 1787/Del/16 AY 2011-12 7085/Del/17 AY 2012-13 Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT-LTU Before we part with, We are reminded of a classic observations by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of the CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., reported in (1958) 33 ITR 681, which reads as under: “We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rat…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1972/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…972/Del/15 AY 2010-11 1787/Del/16 AY 2011-12 7085/Del/17 AY 2012-13 Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT-LTU Before we part with, We are reminded of a classic observations by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of the CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., reported in (1958) 33 ITR 681, which reads as under: “We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rat…

Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 04/10/2018
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)

…24. The ld. AR before us submitted that the expenses claimed by the assessee are eligible on accrual basis. The ld. AR for the assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 33 ITR 681. 25. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee has made the payment for participating in the exhibition which will take place in the subsequent year. However, the assessee claimed the deduct…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/1069/2017HC Delhi15 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260A

…Page 15 of 17 15. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Kumar Goel (supra) had quoted the following passage from the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom) :- ―We have often wondered why the Income tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the income tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of t…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shyam Telelink Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/70/2013HC Delhi15 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260A

…Page 15 of 17 15. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Kumar Goel (supra) had quoted the following passage from the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom) :- ―We have often wondered why the Income tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the income tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of t…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shyam Telelink Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/73/2013HC Delhi15 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260A

…Page 15 of 17 15. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Kumar Goel (supra) had quoted the following passage from the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom) :- ―We have often wondered why the Income tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the income tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of t…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S East Coast Constructions & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1442/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1442/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. East Coast Constructions & Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Vs. Industries Ltd., No. 4, Moores Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaace1662P] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Tripurasundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.25,24,97,133/- Towards Expenses Relatable To The Retention Money Withheld By The Contractees.

For Appellant: Ms. Tripurasundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Bombay High Court was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Shri Ram Pistos and Rings Ltd, 220 CTR 404, as under: "Finally, we may only mention what has been articulated by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom) as follows : . . In the reference that is before us there is no doubt that the assessee had incurred an expenditure. The only dispute is regarding the date on which the liability had crystallized. It appears that there was no change in the rate of tax for the assessment year 1983-84 with which we are concerned. The question, therefore, is on…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…rior period expenses which were disallowed by AO and CIT(A). We find that identical issue arose in Assessee’s case in AY 2006-07. The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills (33 ITR 681) and Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd (41 taxmann.com) remitted the matter back to the AO. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 as under: “159. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…rior period expenses which were disallowed by AO and CIT(A). We find that identical issue arose in Assessee’s case in AY 2006-07. The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills (33 ITR 681) and Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd (41 taxmann.com) remitted the matter back to the AO. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 as under: “159. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed o…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2077/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…rior period expenses which were disallowed by AO and CIT(A). We find that identical issue arose in Assessee’s case in AY 2006-07. The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills (33 ITR 681) and Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd (41 taxmann.com) remitted the matter back to the AO. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 as under: “159. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed o…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2076/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…rior period expenses which were disallowed by AO and CIT(A). We find that identical issue arose in Assessee’s case in AY 2006-07. The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills (33 ITR 681) and Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd (41 taxmann.com) remitted the matter back to the AO. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 as under: “159. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed o…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…rior period expenses which were disallowed by AO and CIT(A). We find that identical issue arose in Assessee’s case in AY 2006-07. The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills (33 ITR 681) and Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd (41 taxmann.com) remitted the matter back to the AO. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 as under: “159. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed o…

Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…rior period expenses which were disallowed by AO and CIT(A). We find that identical issue arose in Assessee’s case in AY 2006-07. The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills (33 ITR 681) and Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd (41 taxmann.com) remitted the matter back to the AO. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 as under: “159. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed o…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…Ltd and Mafatlal Industries (P) Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd.: 299 ITR 1 (SC) • • CIT v. Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd.: 220 CTR 404 (Del.) • CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 336 ITR 374 (Del.) • CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.: 33 ITR 681 (Bom.) • CIT vs. M/s Vishnu Industrial Gases: ITA No. 229/1988 (Del.) In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessing officer may be directed to delete the arbitrary disallowance based on an adhoc percentage of the turnover made in the impugned assessment order. The aforesaid issue now 149 stands covered in favour of the asses…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 39. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (73 ITR 53) (SC), Bharat Earth Moves v. CIT (245 ITR 428) (SC), CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681) (Bom). Also reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05. Mangalore Refinery On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 40. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. Similar issue arose before ITAT ‘F’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own c…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 39. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (73 ITR 53) (SC), Bharat Earth Moves v. CIT (245 ITR 428) (SC), CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681) (Bom). Also reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05. Mangalore Refinery On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 40. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. Similar issue arose before ITAT ‘F’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own c…