CIT v. Raj. State Bride and Construction Corporation Ltd.

346 ITR 53High Court#15669 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj. State Bride and Construction Corporation Ltd.

Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 501/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S Group M Media (India) The Dcit (Osd)-7, Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Commerz 455, Aayakar Bhavan, International Business Park, M.K. Road, Oberoi Garden City, Off Mumbai-400020. Vs. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan: Aadcm1073B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajit Shah(Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah(AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Hindustan Latex Ltd. (supra) and also on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Raj. State Bride and Construction Corporation Ltd.(2012) (346 ITR 53). We notice that the Rajasthan High Court, in the above cited case, has considered the claim of deduction of Provision for leave encashment for assessment year 2000-01. However, the provisions of sec. 43B(f) was inserted into the Act by Finance Act,2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, which could not have been considered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Hence, r…

M/S.the Nilambur Co-Op Urban Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.RajakannanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.294/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.295/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.296/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.The Nilambur Co-op. The Asst.Commissioner of Urban Bank Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle 2(2) HO. P.B.No.10, PO Nilambur Tirur. Malapuram – 679 329 PAN : AAATT2863N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Rajakannan Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2019 Date of Hearing : 22.01.2019 O R D E R Per George George K. (JM) Thes…

M/S.the Nilambur Co-Op Urban Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.RajakannanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.294/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.295/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.296/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.The Nilambur Co-op. The Asst.Commissioner of Urban Bank Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle 2(2) HO. P.B.No.10, PO Nilambur Tirur. Malapuram – 679 329 PAN : AAATT2863N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Rajakannan Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2019 Date of Hearing : 22.01.2019 O R D E R Per George George K. (JM) Thes…

M/S.the Nilambur Co-Op Urban Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.RajakannanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.294/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.295/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.296/Coch/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.The Nilambur Co-op. The Asst.Commissioner of Urban Bank Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle 2(2) HO. P.B.No.10, PO Nilambur Tirur. Malapuram – 679 329 PAN : AAATT2863N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Rajakannan Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2019 Date of Hearing : 22.01.2019 O R D E R Per George George K. (JM) Thes…

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…Ld Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Honble Kerala High Court in the case of Hindustan Latex Ltd (supra) and also on the decision rendered by Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj. State Bride and Construction Corporation Ltd (2012)(346 ITR 53). We notice that the Rajasthan High Court, in the above cited case, has considered the claim of deduction of Provision for leave encashment for assessment year 2000-01. However, the provisions of sec. 43B(f) was inserted into the Act by Finance Act,2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, which could not have been considered by Honble Rajasthan High Court. Hence, re…

Sulzer India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7324/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7324/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sulzer India Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gate No. 304, Income Tax – 8(3), V. Kondhapuri, Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Tal- Shirur, Aayakar Bhavan, Dist. Pune – 412 209. M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs 7876D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234B

…33( Delhi HC). The ld counsel also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT v. Hero Management Services Limited 360 ITR 68(Del), CIT v. Armour Consultants Private Limited , 355 ITR 418(Mad.) , CIT v. Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited 346 ITR 53(Raj.) , CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd 33 ITR 681(Bom.) and CIT v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited, 196 Taxman 94(Del.). Thus the ld. Counsel submitted that provisions for expenses of Rs.11,15,000/-- should be allowed as the provisions for expenses of Rs.11,15,000/- are made on best estimate basis based on Prudence by making an estimate on th…

CIT v. Raj. State Bride and Construction Corporation Ltd. (346 ITR 53) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax