CIT v. Walchand and Company Pvt. Ltd.

209 ITR 324High Court1944#17257 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Walchand and Company Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT. CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S EIPR INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 14ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT – Circle – 3(1)(2) v. M/s. EIPR India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAACE9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by Shri B.K. Bagchi Date of Hearing : 11.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue ag…

SHRI SAHIL SURENDRA SAHARIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DIBRUGARH

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 56/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…(1984) 150 ITR 155 (Guj) (vi) Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 JTR 664 (Pat) (vii) . CIT Vs. ASK. Rathinasamy Nadar (1995) 212 ITR 527 (Mad) (viii) Lokshminarain Modonlal Vs. CIT (1972) 86 TTR 439 (SC) and (ix) Dr.G.G.Joshi Vs. CIT (1944) 209 ITR 324 (Guj). 5.3 I have carefully considered the matter. Assessee had not given any fact regarding actual service tendered by GEC Ltd. In absence of any evidence of concrete service being rendered by the party, it is not possible to agree with the argument that Rs. 70,00,000/- was bona fide paid to the party. Assessee also had not given any evidence to…

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, RANGE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/PUN/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण बी बी "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 2611 & 2612/PUN/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर…

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2611/PUN/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण बी बी "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 2611 & 2612/PUN/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर…

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj D.Sheth, AR
Section 143(3)

…ri Coolie Expenses. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at 25% of the expenses and deleted the balance by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of G.G. Joshi vs CIT (1994) 209 ITR 324 (Guj) by observing in Para 8.2 as under: - “8.2 I have gone through the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions. The appellant enclosed date-wise details of payments with photo copies of claimed bills and vouchers. It is noticed the payment for the labour work have been shown made to various claimed workers' unions, rather th…

CIT v. Walchand and Company Pvt. Ltd. (209 ITR 324) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax