CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT v. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd.

125 TTJ 601Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#14790 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2016.

Judgments citing CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT v. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd.

Saurashtra Fuels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 7273/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80M

…Del) b) Yatish Trading Company Private Limited v. ACIT 129 ITD 237(Mum.) c) G.D.Metsteel Private Limited v. ACIT 47 SOT 62(Mum.) d) CIT v. Winsome Textiles Industries Limited 319 ITR 204(P&H HC) e) CIT v. Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518(P&H) f) Voltas Limited v. JCIT 125 TTJ 601(Mum.) g) K.J.Arora v. DCIT 180 Taxman 131(Del.) h) Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited v. DCIT 45 SOT 37(Ahd.) i) ACIT v. Delite Enterprises Private Limited 135 TTJ 663(Mum.) j) Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) The assessee company further submitted that out of total expenditure of Rs 314.76 crores, the di…

DCIT vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…hat even in such cases, no proportionate disallowance, as made by the authorities below, could be sustained as held in the cases of CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT V Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (ITAT, Delhi) and Voltas Ltd. V ACIT 125 TTJ 601 (ITAT, Mumbai). 8.3.3 The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made a factual error at page 10 of the order of assessment by holding that the assessee's net own funds were negative even though the net worth was over Rs.896 Crores. Even out of the total dividend earned amounting to Rs.4,28,93,165, an a…

DCIT vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…hat even in such cases, no proportionate disallowance, as made by the authorities below, could be sustained as held in the cases of CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT V Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (ITAT, Delhi) and Voltas Ltd. V ACIT 125 TTJ 601 (ITAT, Mumbai). 8.3.3 The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made a factual error at page 10 of the order of assessment by holding that the assessee's net own funds were negative even though the net worth was over Rs.896 Crores. Even out of the total dividend earned amounting to Rs.4,28,93,165, an a…

United Spirits Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…hat even in such cases, no proportionate disallowance, as made by the authorities below, could be sustained as held in the cases of CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT V Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (ITAT, Delhi) and Voltas Ltd. V ACIT 125 TTJ 601 (ITAT, Mumbai). 8.3.3 The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made a factual error at page 10 of the order of assessment by holding that the assessee's net own funds were negative even though the net worth was over Rs.896 Crores. Even out of the total dividend earned amounting to Rs.4,28,93,165, an a…

United Spirtis Limited vs. ACIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…hat even in such cases, no proportionate disallowance, as made by the authorities below, could be sustained as held in the cases of CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT V Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (ITAT, Delhi) and Voltas Ltd. V ACIT 125 TTJ 601 (ITAT, Mumbai). 8.3.3 The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made a factual error at page 10 of the order of assessment by holding that the assessee's net own funds were negative even though the net worth was over Rs.896 Crores. Even out of the total dividend earned amounting to Rs.4,28,93,165, an a…

M/S. United Spirits Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1277/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…hat even in such cases, no proportionate disallowance, as made by the authorities below, could be sustained as held in the cases of CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT V Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. 138 TTJ 244 (ITAT, Delhi) and Voltas Ltd. V ACIT 125 TTJ 601 (ITAT, Mumbai). 8.3.3 The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made a factual error at page 10 of the order of assessment by holding that the assessee's net own funds were negative even though the net worth was over Rs.896 Crores. Even out of the total dividend earned amounting to Rs.4,28,93,165, an a…

CIT V Suzlon Energy Ltd. (354 ITR 630) (Guj); DCIT v. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. (125 TTJ 601) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax