CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd.

392 ITR 2High Court2017#493 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), are allowable deductions under section 36(1)(va) and cannot be disallowed. Such an adjustment is also not permissible summarily under section 143(1).

191

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. · Section 36(1)(va) · employee contribution · PF ESI · due date return of income · Section 143(1) adjustment · allowability of employee contribution · SLP dismissed

Also reported as

250 Taxmann 32

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd.

Sh. Prabhat Singh, Shree Cement Ltd., Andheri Deori, Beawar, Ajmer vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…d before the due date of filing of the return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction company vs DCIT, CPC (in ITA No. 405/JODH/2021 dated 12.08.2021) and similar view has been taken by the Bangalore Benches in…

Sh. Prabhat Singh, Shree Cement Ltd., Andheri Deori, Beawar, Ajmer vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…d before the due date of filing of the return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction company vs DCIT, CPC (in ITA No. 405/JODH/2021 dated 12.08.2021) and similar view has been taken by the Bangalore Benches in…

M/S.Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3064/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, Acit, Pwd Offices, Annexe, 3Rd Floor, K. R. Circle – 4(1)(1), Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaack 5850 B

For Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 40Section 5(1)

…harge” cannot extend beyond the genus created by the words “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge”. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 421, wherein the meaning of the term ‘privilege fees’ used in Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act was held to be fee paid for granting right to manufacture and vend the liquor/sale of country liquor/ Indian made foreign liquor and Beer and determination of privilege fee was within the jurisdiction of the State authorities and levy of such fee cannot be termed…

Sh. Virendra Kumar Ahuja, B-85, 22 Godam Industrial Area, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (ACIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…d before the due date of filing of the return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal Sh. Virendra Kumar Ahuja vs. ITO has also taken a similar view in case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction company vs DCIT, CPC (in ITA No. 405/JODH/2021 dated 12.08.2021) and similar view has been…

M/S Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd., H-45, Sez 1, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (ACIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…turn of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. M/s Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT,CPC Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction company vs DCIT, CPC (in ITA No. 405/JODH/2021 dated 12.08.2021) and similar view has been taken by the Bangalore Benches in…

Pee Tee Turners, Jaipur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…d before the due date of filing of the return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction company vs DCIT, CPC (in ITA No. 405/JODH/2021 dated 12.08.2021) and similar view has been taken by the Bangalore Benches in…

Shashi Rajawat, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 81/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 81/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Rajawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur Pan No.: Abupr 2195 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Rathore (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23/07/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Disallowing The Pf & Esi Payments Amounting To Rs. 97,290/- Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts. 3. That The Petitioner Craves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date.”

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…turn of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State 3 ITA 81/JP/2021_ Shashi Rajawat Vs ITO Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Sohan Lal Tambi vs. ITO (in ITA No. 40/JP/2021 dated 16.08.2021) and K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 41 &42/JP/2021 dated 16.08.2021). It was further submitted t…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 76/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 76/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 602, Elements Mall, Dcm, Ajmer Cpc, Road, Jaipur. Bengaluru. Pan No.: Aabfb 3002 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 29/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,413/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf & Esi. She Has Further Erred In Making The Addition By Not Following The Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State 3 ITA 76/JP/2021_ M/s Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat Vs DCIT Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Sohan Lal Tambi vs. ITO (in ITA No. 40/JP/2021 dated 16.08.2021) and K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 41 &42/JP/2021 dated 16.08.2021). It was further submitted t…

Dhabriya Polywood Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT-C-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Nehra (JCIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance was 3 Dhabriya Polywood Limited vs. ADIT placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 2 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 43 taxmann.com 411. It was further submitted that the recently Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Sohan Lal Tambi vs. ITO (in ITA No. 40/JP/2021 dated 16.08.2021) and K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 41 &42/JP/2021 dated 16.08.2021). It was further submitted t…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…n’ble Rajasthan High Court and was supposed to allow the appeal of the assessee. On this issue, the assessee relies on judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corp. Ltd. 393 ITR 421 and PCIT vs. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Crop. Ltd. (DBIT Appeal No. 49/2019 dated 06.08.2019) wherein it has been held that contribution received from employees for welfare funds as per section 36(1)(va) is allowable as deduction if the assessee has deposited the sum so collected before due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax A…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…n’ble Rajasthan High Court and was supposed to allow the appeal of the assessee. On this issue, the assessee relies on judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corp. Ltd. 393 ITR 421 and PCIT vs. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Crop. Ltd. (DBIT Appeal No. 49/2019 dated 06.08.2019) wherein it has been held that contribution received from employees for welfare funds as per section 36(1)(va) is allowable as deduction if the assessee has deposited the sum so collected before due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax A…

Sohan Lal Tambi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…n’ble Rajasthan High Court and was supposed to allow the appeal of the assessee. On this issue, the assessee relies on judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 363 ITR 70, CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corp. Ltd. 393 ITR 421 and PCIT vs. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Crop. Ltd. (DBIT Appeal No. 49/2019 dated 06.08.2019) wherein it has been held that contribution received from employees for welfare funds as per section 36(1)(va) is allowable as deduction if the assessee has deposited the sum so collected before due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax A…

U and T Tractor Spares Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Aug 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Raksha Birla (C.A.) & Shri Mohit Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM ITA. No. 05/JODH/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Vs. The DCIT, Company, CPC, 181A, Ajit Colony, Bangalore, Jodhpur PAN/GIR No.: AANFM 4741 R Appellant Respondent ITA. No. 28 & 29/JODH/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Pali Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. The ADIT, CPC, SA-4, Pali Urban Bank Head Office, Bangalore, Gurlal Marg Mandia Road, Pali. PAN/GIR No.: AAFAP 2727 F Appellant Respondent ITA. No. 43/JODH/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 U and T Tra…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1420/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 20Section 40Section 5(1)Section 7

…harge” cannot extend beyond the genus created by the words “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge”. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 421, wherein the meaning of the term ‘privilege fees’ used in Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act was held to be fee paid for granting right to manufacture and vend the liquor/sale of country liquor/ Indian made foreign liquor and Beer and determination of privilege fee was within the jurisdiction of the State authorities and levy of such fee cannot be termed…

M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 20Section 40Section 5(1)Section 7

…harge” cannot extend beyond the genus created by the words “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge”. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 421, wherein the meaning of the term ‘privilege fees’ used in Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act was held to be fee paid for granting right to manufacture and vend the liquor/sale of country liquor/ Indian made foreign liquor and Beer and determination of privilege fee was within the jurisdiction of the State authorities and levy of such fee cannot be termed…

M/S Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3190/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 20Section 40Section 5(1)Section 7

…harge” cannot extend beyond the genus created by the words “royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge”. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 421, wherein the meaning of the term ‘privilege fees’ used in Sec.40(a)(iib) of the Act was held to be fee paid for granting right to manufacture and vend the liquor/sale of country liquor/ Indian made foreign liquor and Beer and determination of privilege fee was within the jurisdiction of the State authorities and levy of such fee cannot be termed…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3241 & 6525/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C ITA Nos.3114 & 6256/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Addl. CIT, Vs. Dabur India Ltd., Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3241 & 6525/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C ITA Nos.3114 & 6256/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Addl. CIT, Vs. Dabur India Ltd., Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain,…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3241 & 6525/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C ITA Nos.3114 & 6256/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Addl. CIT, Vs. Dabur India Ltd., Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3241 & 6525/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C ITA Nos.3114 & 6256/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Addl. CIT, Vs. Dabur India Ltd., Punjabi Bhawan, 4th Floor, Range-10, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. PAN : AAACD0474C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain,…