CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

397 ITR 344Supreme Court of India2017#22 most cited

What is CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society authority for?

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

1,589

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,341 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society · Section 153C · incriminating material · validity of notice 153C · search assessment · correlation of material to assessment year · assessment quashed · Section 153A · search and seizure · post-search assessment

Also reported as

96 Taxmann.com 468250 Taxmann 225297 CTR 441156 DTR 161

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 139

Issues it is cited on

abatement of assessmentcasus omissussection 153b(1)section 113section 158bdsection 153c(1)section 153a(1)(b)section 153(1)section 132(1)panchnamasection 153bstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2951/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2950/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2949/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2948/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2947/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2946/DEL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Sad Bhawna, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2945/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 254

…o to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted…” 3.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). Sad Bhawna vs.…

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…as under: “ Para 7- Perusal of the satisfaction note reveals that no documents pertaining to Assessment year 2011-12 was seized during search. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax –III Pune Vs Singhad Technical Education Society reported in (2017) 397 ITR 344 has held that seized material can be considered to be incriminating in terms of section 153C of the Act only if the said material pertains to the assessment year in question. Para 8- With respect to Assessment year 2010-11 and 2012-13, this court is of the view that the recovery of the annual report and the share certificate of the Petitioner fro…

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC-2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…as under: “ Para 7- Perusal of the satisfaction note reveals that no documents pertaining to Assessment year 2011-12 was seized during search. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax –III Pune Vs Singhad Technical Education Society reported in (2017) 397 ITR 344 has held that seized material can be considered to be incriminating in terms of section 153C of the Act only if the said material pertains to the assessment year in question. Para 8- With respect to Assessment year 2010-11 and 2012-13, this court is of the view that the recovery of the annual report and the share certificate of the Petitioner fro…

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…as under: “ Para 7- Perusal of the satisfaction note reveals that no documents pertaining to Assessment year 2011-12 was seized during search. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax –III Pune Vs Singhad Technical Education Society reported in (2017) 397 ITR 344 has held that seized material can be considered to be incriminating in terms of section 153C of the Act only if the said material pertains to the assessment year in question. Para 8- With respect to Assessment year 2010-11 and 2012-13, this court is of the view that the recovery of the annual report and the share certificate of the Petitioner fro…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5796/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…l issue and hold that the AO’s action of making disallowance of spill over depreciation of Rs.62,73,43,996/- is legally unsustainable. And for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 (SC) and ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra). ITA. No.5796, 5769 & 5770/M/17 A.Y Nos. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Hindalco Industries Ltd. 22. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised by assessee is answered in favour of assessee and thus the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition is sustained…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5770/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…l issue and hold that the AO’s action of making disallowance of spill over depreciation of Rs.62,73,43,996/- is legally unsustainable. And for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 (SC) and ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra). ITA. No.5796, 5769 & 5770/M/17 A.Y Nos. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Hindalco Industries Ltd. 22. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised by assessee is answered in favour of assessee and thus the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition is sustained…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5769/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…l issue and hold that the AO’s action of making disallowance of spill over depreciation of Rs.62,73,43,996/- is legally unsustainable. And for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 (SC) and ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra). ITA. No.5796, 5769 & 5770/M/17 A.Y Nos. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Hindalco Industries Ltd. 22. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised by assessee is answered in favour of assessee and thus the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition is sustained…

Hindalco Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5576/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…l issue and hold that the AO’s action of making disallowance of spill over depreciation of Rs.62,73,43,996/- is legally unsustainable. And for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 (SC) and ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra). ITA. No.5796, 5769 & 5770/M/17 A.Y Nos. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Hindalco Industries Ltd. 22. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised by assessee is answered in favour of assessee and thus the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition is sustained…

Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5559/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…l issue and hold that the AO’s action of making disallowance of spill over depreciation of Rs.62,73,43,996/- is legally unsustainable. And for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 (SC) and ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra). ITA. No.5796, 5769 & 5770/M/17 A.Y Nos. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Hindalco Industries Ltd. 22. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised by assessee is answered in favour of assessee and thus the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition is sustained…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaizabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 21/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…o the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted .... 4.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 20/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…o the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted .... 4.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 19/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…o the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted .... 4.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 18/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…o the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted .... 4.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional…

Panna Lal & Co., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are allowed and all the four appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2014-

ITA 2913/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153A

…o the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted .... 4.1 In support of the admittance of the above additional grounds, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC). ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). iii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Annr. (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H). iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi). v) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). vi) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.). 4.2. Additional…