CIT v. Shankaranarayan Construction Co.

197 ITR 688High Court1992#16382 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also reported as

68 Taxmann 426

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 40(a)(1)interest under section 201(1a)percentage completion methodsection 194jemployees contribution to pfsection 10(34)section 21computer softwaresection 40(a)(i)section 201(1a)section 30

Judgments citing CIT v. Shankaranarayan Construction Co.

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of ‘Imagine’, No. 78, Income Tax, ITPL Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCT9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of Pron…

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of ‘Imagine’, No. 78, Income Tax, ITPL Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCT9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of Pron…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of ‘Imagine’, No. 78, Income Tax, ITPL Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCT9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of Pron…

CHIRAG J. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 19 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 6520/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims not made in the return filed by it. This legal proposition is clearly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jute corporation Of India Limited vs CIT (1991) 197 ITR 688, Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Goetz India Ltd.vs CIT Chirag J.Mehta (2006) 157 taxmann 01 had also, categorically held that the restriction imposed on the Ld. AO for not admitting fresh claim without filing revised return of income has no application to appellate authorities and the appellate authorities are at liberty to adm…

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. SATISH B KAUSHIK, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5601/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…refund of the advance amount. This transaction is a loan transaction and not remuneration paid to the assessee. In support, the ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Shankaranarayan Construction Co. (1992) 197 ITR 688 (KAR), upon the decision of Mumbai-Tribunal in the case of Robin Nana Bhai Bhatt v. ACIT (2014)29 ITR (Trib.) 531,decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Limited (2001)250 ITR 849(Del. HC). 15. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. 16. We have c…

SATISH B. KAUSHIK,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…refund of the advance amount. This transaction is a loan transaction and not remuneration paid to the assessee. In support, the ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Shankaranarayan Construction Co. (1992) 197 ITR 688 (KAR), upon the decision of Mumbai-Tribunal in the case of Robin Nana Bhai Bhatt v. ACIT (2014)29 ITR (Trib.) 531,decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Limited (2001)250 ITR 849(Del. HC). 15. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. 16. We have c…

CIT v. Shankaranarayan Construction Co. (197 ITR 688) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax