What is CIT v. Walchand & Co. authority for?

The necessity and reasonableness of business expenditure, including the utilization of borrowed funds, must be judged from the perspective of a businessman based on commercial expediency, and cannot be dictated by revenue authorities. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the business purpose and commercial expediency.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Walchand & Co.?

314 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Walchand & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 148, Section 147, Section 40A(2)(b), Section 40A(3).

CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381)

Tata Coffee Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the same fails and is hereby

ITA/46/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 37(1)

…in entirety under Section 145(3) of the Act. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in 5 ‘COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. WALCHAND AND CO. P. LTD.’, (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) as well as decision of this court in ‘INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I AND ANR.’, I.T.ANO.6/2011 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DATED 11.03.2020. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the burden is on assessee to prove the fact that the amount was expended for business purp…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. No. 6496/Mum/2017 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Asst. CIT 4(3)(1) vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. R.No. 649, 6th Floor, Ltd., 2nd Floor, Office Gally, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 M.J. Market, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai [PAN: AAACT 1700F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR) Respondent by: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.) Date of Hearing: 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2020 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue d…

Mannulal Jagannath Das Trust Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/JAB/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Arora

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…nditions precedent for the grant of approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi)), the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the Act. Though the case law in the matter is legion, we may, for authority, refer to the decision in CIT vs. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), explaining that the Tribunal is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject matter of an appeal, in light of the evidence and consistently with the justice of the case. Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, clearly states that the Tribunal is, in arriving at its decision, not confined to the…

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…e businessman and not of the Revenue.” [at page 217] The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (1969) 1 SCR 525 where the Court held: “As pointed out by this Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. Private Ltd. [(1967) 65 ITR 381 : (AIR 1967 SC 1435)] in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Income Tax Department. It is, of course, open to the App…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…Court is deciding a question under Section 12(2) of the Income Tax Act”. It was further held in this case that “it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned”. In CIT v. Walchand& Co. etc., (1967) 65 ITR 381, it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule that…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…Court is deciding a question under Section 12(2) of the Income Tax Act”. It was further held in this case that “it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned”. In CIT v. Walchand& Co. etc., (1967) 65 ITR 381, it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule that…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…Court is deciding a question under Section 12(2) of the Income Tax Act”. It was further held in this case that “it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned”. In CIT v. Walchand& Co. etc., (1967) 65 ITR 381, it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule that…

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…Court is deciding a question under Section 12(2) of the Income Tax Act”. It was further held in this case that “it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned”. In CIT v. Walchand& Co. etc., (1967) 65 ITR 381, it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule that…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…is real, whether it is related to the business and is wholly spent for that purpose and not otherwise. For this, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (59 taxmann.com 295) (Delhi) ii…

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…is real, whether it is related to the business and is wholly spent for that purpose and not otherwise. For this, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (59 taxmann.com 295) (Delhi) ii…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…is real, whether it is related to the business and is wholly spent for that purpose and not otherwise. For this, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (59 taxmann.com 295) (Delhi) ii…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…is real, whether it is related to the business and is wholly spent for that purpose and not otherwise. For this, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (59 taxmann.com 295) (Delhi) ii…

Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1

In the result, the appeals are

ITA/6/2011HC Karnataka11 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 260A

…ased on any evidence. It is further submitted that such disallowance cannot be made on adhoc basis. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been 11 placed on decision of Supreme Court in ‘CIT VS. WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD.,’ (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC). Lastly, it is urged that sub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC provides the manner, in which deduction has to be computed. Learned counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to explanation contained to Section 80HHC (4C) and has submitted that profit of business means the profit of business as computed under the head “profits…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar vs. M/S Shephali Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Beawar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1224/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1224/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Ito M/S. Shephali Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ward- 1 14-A, Ashirwad Bhawan Beawar Champa Nagar, Beawar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs 9146 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.K. Mehla, Jcit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Prakul Khurana, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 05 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 01-08-2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Has Erred In:- 1. Deleting Addition Of Rs. 21,5,00,000/- Made On Account Of Bogus Share Application Money Received

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Mehla, JCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

…e managed by paying a lesser amount as Share Premium as a prudent businessman. The test of prudence by substituting its own view in place of the businessman’s has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the decisions of CIT vs Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 and J.K. Woollen Mfg. vs CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC).’’ 22 ITO, Ward- 1, Beawar vs M/s. Shaifali Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Beawar In view of the facts, circumstances of the case as discussed above as well as the decisions cited (supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the Reven…

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 969/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019

Section 139(1)

…t is deciding a question under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act". It was further held in this case that "it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned". In CIT v. Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule…

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 968/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019

Section 139(1)

…t is deciding a question under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act". It was further held in this case that "it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned". In CIT v. Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule…

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 967/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019

Section 139(1)

…t is deciding a question under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act". It was further held in this case that "it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned". In CIT v. Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule…

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8965/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)

…Court is deciding a question under Section 12(2) of the Income Tax Act". It was further held in this case that "it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned". In CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc., (1967) 65 ITR 381, it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule tha…

M/S. Lummus Technology Heat Transfer Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subha Kant Sahu, Senior DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92C(2)

…nditure has to be considered with businessman’s stand point and revenue officer cannot decide such issue while sitting on the businessman’s arm chair. This proposition has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT 39 vs. Walchand and Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) and Aluminium Corporation of India vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 1 (SC). 64. In view of what has been discussed above and following the order passed by the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case in 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10, we are of the considered view that aforesaid addition made by the AO/DRP qua attribution of profits amounting to Rs.76,33,390/- t…

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1239/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sant, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1239/HYD/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Sunil Vishram Chawda, The Asst. Commissioner of HYDERABAD Vs Income Tax, [PAN: AAUPC0487H] Circle-14(1), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR For Revenue : Shri A.S. Sant, DR Date of Hearing : 06-11-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15-11-2019 O R D E R PER Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. : This is assessee’s appeal for the AY.2013-14, directed against the order of t…

CIT v. Walchand & Co.

What is CIT v. Walchand & Co. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Walchand & Co.

Tata Coffee Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Mannulal Jagannath Das Trust Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Bhopal

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar vs. M/S Shephali Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Beawar

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

M/S. Lummus Technology Heat Transfer Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Sunil Vishram Chawda, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad