CIT v. TISCO: 106 IR 363 (Bom.) v. CIT v. Sankarapandia

135 ITR 91High Court#22433 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. TISCO: 106 IR 363 (Bom.) v. CIT v. Sankarapandia

M/S. L & T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The Dy It Cir 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2901/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Vs. Income Tax Range 12(2), Taxation Department, L&T Room No. 114, 1St Floor, House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Estate, Mumbai-400001 Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaal0284E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143

…ices Ltd. (307 ITR 202), Bilahari Investments (P.) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint 295), Snow White Food Products Co. Ltd. (141 ITR 861), Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681), Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandal Ltd. (135 ITR 91), Alfa Laval India Ltd. (113 Taxman 740) and India Motor Parts & Accessories (P.) Ltd. (60 ITR 531). 24. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that these heavy tools, small tools, consumables have been used in subsequent years as reported by the special auditor in his report and therefore, the policy of the assessee- UJV to show them as cost of th…

ITO, WD-46(1), Kolkata vs. Provash Adhikari, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1101/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Sallon Yaden, Addl. CIT, ld. DRFor Respondent: none appeared

Section 143(3)

…ept" does not apply and the accounts are required to be settled primarily for determining the rights and obligations of the persons concerned. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also followed the above view in Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandali Ltd Vs. CIT (135 ITR 91) and in Kwality Steel Suppliers Vs. C I T (271 ITR 40). Since in the present context, there is neither dissolution of the firm nor discontinuation of business, the exception carved out from the general rule, thus, clearly does not apply. The Hon'ble ITAT, 'C Bench, Ahmedabad, has delivered a judgment in regard to method of accounting in the case…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…in this regard is placed on: i. UCO Bank v. CIT: 240 ITR 355 (SC) ii. CIT v. Singaribai: 13 ITR 224 (All.)(FB) iii. Juggilal v. CIT: 101 ITR 40 (All.) iv. CIT v. TISCO: 106 IR 363 (Bom.) v. CIT v. Sankarapandia: 130 ITR 541 (Mad.) vi. Balapur Mandali v. CIT: 135 ITR 91 (Guj.) He further stated that In any case, considering that the appellant is a high tax paying company, subjected to uniform rate of tax, no adjustment is even otherwise called for in view of the following: a. If the closing stock of the year is to be varied, similar adjustments would need to be made to the opening stock, too. (Refer: K.G. Khosl…