CIT v. Rajan Nanda

349 ITR 8High Court2012#5727 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also reported as

18 Taxmann.com 98

Sections most often in play

Section 10(10D)Section 28(vi)Section 57Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 2(24)(iv)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

keyman insurancesection 2(14)section 28disallowance u/s 14asection 10section 37section 14aincome from other sourcestransfersearch and seizuresection 132company

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajan Nanda

JAG MOHAN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7055/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.7055/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2014-15) Jag Mohan, 354, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Delhi 110034 Pan Ahdpm-3671-M बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle-18, New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, Chartered Accountants & Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Namita Khurana Cit-Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18/09/2017, For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S.132 Of The Income Was Conducted On 26.08.2013 In The Case Of Mohan India Group. The Assessee Is One Of The Directors Of Mohan India Group & The Assessee Was Also Covered Under Said Search. During

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…that for any addition to be valid in assessment, it must not only fall within the definition of income, must also be chargeable to tax under the charging provision. To support his argument he placed reliance of the following decisions: - CIT vs. Rajan Nanda 349 ITR 8 (Delhi); and - Nanikant Ambalal Mody vs CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC). 3.4 Next ld. AR of the assessee contended that the assessment order in the case of the assessee is verbatim to the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed in the case of Mohan India P. Ltd. for AY 2013-14. He submitted that a perusal of the assessment order in the case of Mohan India P.…

SHRIPAL RAJ LODHA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 6217/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2021-22
Section 10Section 69Section 69A

…rently got converted into ordinary life insurance policy as\nassignment was accepted by LIC on 30.01.2013. For this proposition we may\nderive support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in C77 v. Rajan\nNanda [2012] 18 taxmann.com 98/205 Taxman 138/349 ITR 8 (Delhi)\nwherein it was observed as under.\"\n6. 2. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench held that amendment is\neffective from 01/04/2014 onward. The relevant finding of the\nTribunal(supra) is reproduced as under:\n“43. Thus the effect of amendment on the facts of the present case would be\nthat when the first assignment was done in October 2010, the…

MR. ATUL HIRAJI MARU,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)
Section 57

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2879/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & I.T.A. No. 4064/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Atul Hirji Maru ACIT, Circle-19(1), Mumbai 51, 25th Floor Vs Usha Kiran CHS Ltd., M.L. Dahanukar Marg Mumbai - 400026 [PAN: AABPM4278R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/R Revenue by : Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घ…

MR. ATUL HIRJI MARU,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2879/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)
Section 57

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2879/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & I.T.A. No. 4064/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Atul Hirji Maru ACIT, Circle-19(1), Mumbai 51, 25th Floor Vs Usha Kiran CHS Ltd., M.L. Dahanukar Marg Mumbai - 400026 [PAN: AABPM4278R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Waglay, A/R Revenue by : Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घ…

MIHIR PARIKH,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2982/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Mihir Parikh, Vs Acit, 47, 2Nd Floor, Navjivvan Vihar, Circle-61(1), New Delhi-110017. Delhi. Pan-Ahmpp7063M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Respondent By Dr.Maninder Kaur Biswas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024 Order

Section 10Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Mihir Parikh, vs ACIT, 47, 2nd Floor, Navjivvan Vihar, Circle-61(1), New Delhi-110017. Delhi. PAN-AHMPP7063M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Respondent by Dr.Maninder Kaur Biswas, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : By way of this present appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”…

SIDDHARTH DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesiddharth Developers V. Acit – Central Circle – 5(3) 205 Commerce House Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor 140 N.M. Road, Fort Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400023 Pan: Abffs4068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Salil Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…The AO also cannot decide the commercial expediency in incurring the said expenditure and it is the Assessee's prerogative to decide the same [Ref. S.A. Builders Ltd. v/s CIT-(2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), CIT v/s Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd. -(2012) 349 ITR 8 (Delhi), et al.]. In fact it has been held that the AO can only decide if the expenditure is real and whether the same is incurred for the purpose of business and nothing more. In the present case no such dispute as regards the actual incurrence or the purpose of the expenditure has been raised at all. The action of the AO in the impugned assessmen…

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

…18-19 K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. borrowed funds to a sister concern from the point of view of commercial expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits." 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajan Nanda (349 ITR 8), has observed as under: — "25. After giving our due and thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties of both sides, we feel that the assessee has been able to make out a case in its favour and order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. We are persuaded by the following reasons in support of this view of ours: (i) to…

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

…18-19 K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. borrowed funds to a sister concern from the point of view of commercial expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits." 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajan Nanda (349 ITR 8), has observed as under: — "25. After giving our due and thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties of both sides, we feel that the assessee has been able to make out a case in its favour and order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. We are persuaded by the following reasons in support of this view of ours: (i) to…

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI KIRIT SHARAD JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 609/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR
Section 10

…the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the maturity value of the Keyman Insurance Policy assigned to the employee is exempt under section 10(10D) of the Act relying on the decision of Delhi High Cuort in the case of CIT v/s Rajan Nanda, 349 ITR 8, without appreciating the fact that the above said decision has not been accepted by the Department and SLP has been filed which is pending. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the maturity value of the Keyman Policy assigned to the employee is exempt under section 10(10D) of the Ac…

GOYAL SONS ZAVERI PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ACIT, HISAR

ITA 475/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Goyal Sons Zaveri Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Scf – 97, Rajguru Market, Vs. Hisar Circle, Distt. Hisar, Haryana. Hisar. Pan: Aaccg8213A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “C” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) M/s. Goyal Sons Zaveri Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, SCF – 97, Rajguru Market, Vs. Hisar Circle, Distt. Hisar, Haryana. Hisar. PAN: AACCG8213A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate; Department by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 09/06/2021 Date of pronouncement 14/07/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A), Hisar…

RAVJIBHAI L. KAKADIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 20 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 175/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R.K. SinhaFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak &
Section 10Section 17

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.175/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Ravjibhai L. Kakadia 601–602, Plot no.254–A Raheja Legend, Dr. A.B. Road ……………. Appellant Worli Colony, Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AGQPK5038G v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–20(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri R.K. Sinha Revenue by : Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak & Smt. Kavita P kaushik Date of Hearing – 07.08.2020 Date of Order – 03.09.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The captioned appeal has been f…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5828/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 269SSection 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own point but that of a prudent businessman. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Rajan Nanda (2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del); ii) Vodafone South Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 410 (Del); and iii) CIT vs. Rockman Cycle Industries (P) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 401 (P&H). 15. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 16. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the parties, perused th…

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Harleen Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry,…

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Harleen Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry,…

RAVI PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 130/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)
Section 148Section 2

…ight to receive the income becomes vested in the assessee, it is said to accrue or arise.” Ravi Poddar Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur 6.4 In the context of provisions relating to Keyman Insurance Policy, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Rajan Nanda (349 ITR 8) has examined each of the above provisions as stated above (section 2(24)(xi), section 10(10D), Section 17(3)(ii), Section 28(vi) and Section 56(2)(iv)) and has held that the legislature in its wisdom thought to tax only that payment which is actually received by the employee assessee under the keyman insurance policy and in para 46, has confirme…

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ACYTELENE TREXIM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2009-10 ITO, Ward-9(1), V/s. M/s Acytelene Trexim (P) Ltd., 14, N.S. Road (4th P-7, Choringhee Square, Aayakar Floor), Clive Row, Bhawan, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Room-14, Kolkata- [PAN No.AACCA 4045 J] 700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Debasish Banerjee, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 20-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9085/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 209-Arcadia Building 2Nd 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2007-08 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 209-Arcadia Building 2Nd Vs. Mumbai-400020 Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 14A

…paid in respect of any person, who is connected with the business of the assessee would be treated as keyman. There is no requirement, that such person should be a working partner or managing partner. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Rajan Nanda (2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del.) held that premium on keyman insurance is a deductible business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- The assessee took keyman insurance policies on the lives of two employees/directors in different years. After paying premium for a certain period, they were assigned to…

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…paid in respect of any person, who is connected with the business of the assessee would be treated as keyman. There is no requirement, that such person should be a working partner or managing partner. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Rajan Nanda (2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del.) held that premium on keyman insurance is a deductible business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- The assessee took keyman insurance policies on the lives of two employees/directors in different years. After paying premia for a certain period, they were assigned to…

DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…paid in respect of any person, who is connected with the business of the assessee would be treated as keyman. There is no requirement, that such person should be a working partner or managing partner. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Rajan Nanda (2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del.) held that premium on keyman insurance is a deductible business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- The assessee took keyman insurance policies on the lives of two employees/directors in different years. After paying premia for a certain period, they were assigned to…

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…paid in respect of any person, who is connected with the business of the assessee would be treated as keyman. There is no requirement, that such person should be a working partner or managing partner. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Rajan Nanda (2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del.) held that premium on keyman insurance is a deductible business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- The assessee took keyman insurance policies on the lives of two employees/directors in different years. After paying premia for a certain period, they were assigned to…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2