CIT v. Paul Brothers

216 ITR 548High Court1995#594 most cited

What is CIT v. Paul Brothers authority for?

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paul Brothers · Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 · section 80IA · section 80IB · initial assessment year · deduction subsequent years · estoppel · denial of deduction · withdrawal of relief · recurring deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 80IBSection 14ASection 131Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 80ib(2)section 2(29ba)section 11binitial assessment yearsection 80ia(4)(i)section 36(l)(iii)section 36(l)section 80jdeduction under section 80iasection 80ibsection 80ia(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Paul Brothers

ACIT Cen Cir Cir-34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 3859/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was claimed that if there is recurring issue and, if allowed in first year, then in the later year, the relief cannot be denied. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and CIT vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007 for Assessment year 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of assessee itself, order dated 25/02/2009. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR and he merely relied upon the impugned order.…

DCIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 5751/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was claimed that if there is recurring issue and, if allowed in first year, then in the later year, the relief cannot be denied. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and CIT vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007 for Assessment year 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of assessee itself, order dated 25/02/2009. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR and he merely relied upon the impugned order.…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…r changed on valid grounds. But without disturbing the relief granted in the initial year, the Income-tax Officer cannot examine the question again and decide to withhold or withdraw the relief which has been already once granted.‖ (ii) CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.) ―Either in section80HH or in section80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy La…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…es remained the same. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v/s Union of India, [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Paul Brothers, [1995] 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). He, therefore, held that disallowance of deduction by the 6 M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd. Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year cannot be sustained. Having held so, he noticed that as per the definition of infrastructure facilities under section 80IA(4), it includes any public facility as notified by the Board in the official…

Globatronix (Bombay) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhi.T.A. No.41/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) I.T.A. No.2861/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) फनाभ/ Globatronix (Bombay) Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Circle 8(1), Unit No.157, Sdf-V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Seepz, Andheri (E), Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 096. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg8030H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.P. R.R. Murty, DR
Section 10ASection 148Section 263

…t, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AY 2005-2006 is the initial assessment year in which exemption u/s 10A of the Act was claimed for the first time. Relying on the binding jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers (216 ITR 548), Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the AY 2005-06, the said claim of the assessee u/s 10A was accepted by the Revenue. Bringing our attention to para 1.3 of the impugned order, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the new unit named „Teledyne‟ was established in the AY 2005-06 and the AO disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 10…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Msv International Inc., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the years are dismissed

ITA 1231/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit, Msv International Inc., Circle-3(2), International D-7, South City-I, Taxation, New Delhi Vs. Gurgaon Pan:Aadcm1304M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit, Msv International Inc., Circle-3(2), Room No.411, D-7, South City-I, Vs. International Taxation, Drum Gurgaon Shaped Building, Pan:Aadcm1304M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44DSection 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DDIT, MSV International Inc., Circle-3(2), International D-7, South City-I, Taxation, New Delhi Vs. Gurgaon PAN:AADCM1304M (Appellant) (Respondent) DDIT, MSV International Inc., Circle-3(2), Room No.411, D-7, South City-I, Vs. International Taxation, Drum Gurgaon Shaped Building, PAN:AADCM1304M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv Revenue by:Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.11.2015 Date of pronouncement 12.02.2016 O R D E R PER…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…of the AO for disallowing the interest even in view of consistency principle laid down by Page 10 of 39 11 Jindal Drugs Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321 and by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548. Accordingly, we uphold the action of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. The next grievance of the assessee relates to denial of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of new unit set up at Daman. Ld. AR placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 wherein the matter wa…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…of the AO for disallowing the interest even in view of consistency principle laid down by Page 10 of 39 11 Jindal Drugs Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321 and by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548. Accordingly, we uphold the action of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. The next grievance of the assessee relates to denial of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of new unit set up at Daman. Ld. AR placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 wherein the matter wa…

Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5371/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Shukla
Section 80I

…es remained the same. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v/s Union of India, [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Paul Brothers, [1995] 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). He, therefore, held that disallowance of deduction by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year cannot be sustained. Having held so, he noticed that as per the definition of infrastructure facilities under section 80IA(4), it includes any public facility as notified by the Board in the official gazette. He further observed, Go…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…of the AO for disallowing the interest even in view of consistency principle laid down by Page 10 of 39 11 Jindal Drugs Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321 and by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548. Accordingly, we uphold the action of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. The next grievance of the assessee relates to denial of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of new unit set up at Daman. Ld. AR placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 wherein the matter wa…

ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4342/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…of the AO for disallowing the interest even in view of consistency principle laid down by Page 10 of 39 11 Jindal Drugs Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321 and by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548. Accordingly, we uphold the action of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. The next grievance of the assessee relates to denial of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of new unit set up at Daman. Ld. AR placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 wherein the matter wa…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. M/S. ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…of the AO for disallowing the interest even in view of consistency principle laid down by Page 10 of 39 11 Jindal Drugs Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321 and by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548. Accordingly, we uphold the action of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. The next grievance of the assessee relates to denial of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of new unit set up at Daman. Ld. AR placed on record order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 wherein the matter wa…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. United Liner Agencies of India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 970/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

Section 80Section 80I

…of consistency, as department has granted the deduction to the assessee in A.Y 2004-05, the same cannot be withdrawn for subsequent years. For this purpose Ld. A.R has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548(Bom), wherein deduction under 17 M/s United Linger Agencies of India Pvt. Ltd.. section 80 HH and 80J was granted for A.Y 1980-81 and subsequently these deductions were sought to be withdrawn under section 263 by CIT. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that either in section 80HH or in section 80J there is no provision for withdrawal of specia…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-480/2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-302/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-151/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITR-49-50/1996HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Lt

ITA - 480 / 2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…

CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA - 302 / 2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/302/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been raised, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 80-I of the Act is quoted bel…