CIT v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari

388 ITR 630High Court2016#20819 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1949Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40(a)(ia)Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari

DHANVARSHA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 1600/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar ShindeFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…he Appellant would be entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the enhanced income of INR.13,94,486/-. Our view draws support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari (2016), 388 ITR 630 (Bom), and Circular No. 37 of 2016, dated 02/11/2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In view of the aforesaid, there would be no additional income or tax liability in the hands of the Appellant even if the disallowance is sustained. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has also not made any addition/disallowance in the computation of…

DHANVARSHA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1599/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Shinde
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1600/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) & ITA No. 1599/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dhanvarsha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Gala No. 2, Central Facility Building, APMC Market, Sector – 19, Vashi, Maharashtra - 400705 [PAN: AAAAD4945L] Vs Appellant Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(3) Room No. 327, 3rd Floor, 6th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Maharashtra - 400703 Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department…

SOLAPUR DCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 713/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P

…f the Act, has been a subject matter of debate before various High Courts. On the one hand, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in ‘ITO Vs Keval Construction’ reported in 354 ITR 13, and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sunil Vishwambhamath Tiwari’ reported in 388 ITR 630 and also Honb’le Allahabad High Court in ‘PCIT Vs Sunya Merchant’ reported in 72 taxmann.com 16, have held that, the deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits enhanced by way of the disallowance. Per contra, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Harshwardhan Chemicals’ reported in 131 Taxman 813 categorically denied…

MATHAVANKURICHI PACCS,TUTICORIN vs. ITO,WARD-3, TUTICORIN

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

ITA 97/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80Section 80P

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ (एस एम सी) "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 97/CHNY/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mathavankurichi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co Operative Vs. Ward 3, Society Ltd., Tuticorin. Mathavankurichi Village, Thandavankadu Post, Tuticorin – 628 206. PAN: AACAM 0533H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sre…

CIT v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari (388 ITR 630) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax