CIT v. Sony India (P) Ltd.

139 ITD 526Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19060 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 359,370 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sony India (P) Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…of claim u/s 35DDA is covered in favour of assessee by the order of the ITAT for AY 2002-03, AY 2004-05, AY 2005-06, AY 2006- 07 and AY 2007-08. Further, reliance is placed on CIT vs. Sony India (P) Ltd : 210 Taxman 149 (Del) and State Bank of Mysore vs. CIT, 139 ITD 526 (Bang) where it has been held that compliance with the conditions of rule 2BA is mandatory only to avail the exemption under section 10(10C) by employees and not for the purposes of deduction under section 35DDA. 7.1. Per contra, it is the argument of the Ld. DR that this issue was also adjudicated upon by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal i…

Nelliparambil Gopalan Gangadevi, Ernakulam vs. ITO Ward 1, Aluva

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 996/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 147

…uctive, clarifying several related aspects. Attention is particularly drawn to answers to Qs. 1 & 2, being in respect of the issue at hand. The ld. CIT(A) has further placed reliance on the decision by the Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore vs. CIT (reported at 139 ITD 526 (Bang)), since upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [in [2013] 356 ITR 468 (Kar)], as well as by the Cochin Bench in Krishnan Achary vs. ITO (ITA No. 432/Coch/2018, dated 26.02.2020), wherein exemption has been held as rightly denied in view of the non- satisfaction of the conditions of r. 2BA. In the instant case, none of the conditions, s…

Sri.Krishnan Achary, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO, WD-3, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 10Section 148

…Act and Rule 2BA of I.T. Rules are satisfied, then only the assessee would be entitled to the benefit and in those cases, the employer need not deduct tax at source. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. CIT reported in 139 ITD 526 had held that compliance of Rule 2BA is mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. The above order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (reported in 356 ITR 468). In the instant case, the assessee has failed to produce certificate from the employer (SBI) stating that the ‘exit op…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…of claim u/s 35DDA is covered in favour of assessee by the order of the ITAT for AY 2002-03, AY 2004-05, AY 2005-06, AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08. Further, reliance is placed on CIT vs. Sony India (P) Ltd : 210 Taxman 149 (Del) and State Bank of Mysore vs. CIT, 139 ITD 526 (Bang) where it has been held that compliance with the conditions of rule 2BA is mandatory only to avail the exemption under section 10(10C) by employees and not for the purposes of deduction under section 35DDA. 7.1. Per contra, it is the argument of the Ld. DR that this issue was also adjudicated upon by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in…