CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd. (323 ITR 467)

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

ITA 182/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 255(4)

…ssee…\"\n(Paragraph 11)\n6. Further, the mere fact of issue of warrants of authorization in the\nname of a company cannot by itself be considered as initiation of a\nsearch in its case, as held in the following judgments:\n(i) CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd. [2009] 323 ITR 467 (Kar.):\n“…we may safely assign to the expression ‘search initiated’; the\nmeaning ‘search taken’ or ‘search commenced’ or ‘making\nbeginning of the search’. If this is meant by the expression ‘search\ninitiated’, it cannot be held that the only signing of the\nauthorisations by the DIT, Bangalore, on 30-12-1996 to make a\nsearch in the premises…

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…t and initiation of search are two different events and what is contemplated u/s 153A is initiation of search and not just authorization of search, he drew our attention to a decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Wipro Finance Ltd [2010] 323 ITR 467 (Kar), though in the context of Section 158BC under old Block assessment scheme. 14.3 It was further submitted that if the above were to be held as a clerical mistake, it could have been at one place, but non-mentioning of the name of assessee firm in the witnesses appointment order and the panchnama means that it was a decision of the authorised…

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…t and initiation of search are two different events and what is contemplated u/s 153A is initiation of search and not just authorization of search, he drew our attention to a decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Wipro Finance Ltd [2010] 323 ITR 467 (Kar), though in the context of Section 158BC under old Block assessment scheme. 14.3 It was further submitted that if the above were to be held as a clerical mistake, it could have been at one place, but non-mentioning of the name of assessee firm in the witnesses appointment order and the panchnama means that it was a decision of the authorised…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…herefore, could not have been issued. He pointed out that there is a difference between search authorization and initiation of search, by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd. [2009] 176 Taxman 233/[2010] 323 ITR 467. He agreed that in the present case, search authorization was issued against the partnership firm but according to him since no search was actually carried out, it cannot be stated that the search was initiated against the partnership firm. (ii) Learned Counsel submitted that for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, a partnership firm and its partn…

M/S. COURSE5 INTELLIGENCE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY CROSS TAB MARKETING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

…ile all relevant documents/forward contracts to establish the nexes with the business of assessee and also the fact that such contracts are on account of revenue and not on capital. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Wipro Finance Ltd. reported in 351 ITR 153 following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Woodward Governor (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) held as under: “4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in this judgment is to the fact that while even notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss as to a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as…

M/S. ASIA POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…directed to file all relevant documents to establish the nexes with the business of assessee and also the fact that such loss are on account of revenue and not on capital in nature. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Wipro Finance Ltd. reported in 351 ITR 153 following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Woodward Governor (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) held as under: “4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in this judgment is to the fact that while even notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss as to a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S ASIA POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…directed to file all relevant documents to establish the nexes with the business of assessee and also the fact that such loss are on account of revenue and not on capital in nature. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Wipro Finance Ltd. reported in 351 ITR 153 following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Woodward Governor (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) held as under: “4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in this judgment is to the fact that while even notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss as to a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as…

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 558/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ile all relevant documents/forward contracts to establish the nexes with the business of assessee and also the fact that such contracts are on account of revenue and not on capital. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Wipro Finance Ltd. reported in 351 ITR 153 following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Woodward Governor (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) held as under: “4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in this judgment is to the fact that while even notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss as to a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as…

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 557/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ile all relevant documents/forward contracts to establish the nexes with the business of assessee and also the fact that such contracts are on account of revenue and not on capital. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Wipro Finance Ltd. reported in 351 ITR 153 following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Woodward Governor (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) held as under: “4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in this judgment is to the fact that while even notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss as to a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S ROHM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 160/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT

Section 145Section 209Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 43A

…t the CIT (A) has wrongly appreciated the contention of the assessee and has merely relied upon the order passed by the CIT (A) for the earlier year, despite judgment rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd [351 ITR 153]. 05. None was present on behalf of the assessee and a written submission has been filed on 26.12.2017. It was submitted therein that for AY 2008-09, the CIT (A) has granted the relief. Therefore, following the principle of consistency as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (193 ITR 321], this relief…

REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES,PUNE vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 682/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sunil U Pathak & Smt Geetaa GuwalaniiFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 132Section 153A

…e of notice u/s. 153A and 153A(1)(b). In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of J M Trading Corporation vs. ACIT 20 SOT 489 (Mum); Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah v. ACIT 36(II) ITCL 62 (Ahmedabad ‘D’ Bench of the Tribunal); CIT vs. Wipro Finance Ltd. 323 ITR 467 (Kar) and CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala 82 ITR 821 (SC). Thus, on the basis of these decisions, it was submitted that since the assessment u/s 153A is based on a invalid notice issued u/s. 153A the same must therefore be quashed. 6. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee has taken this ground before the CIT(A) but…

UNIQUE STAR DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan

Section 153ASection 80I

…sment years were permissible to be framed only when there was a search conducted. In defense of his arguments the ld.AR also placed reliance on a serious of decisions namely (i) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ITO V/s Wipro Finance Ltd reported in 323 ITR 467 (Kar), (ii) M/s Harsh Deep Construction V/s DCIT in ITA Nos.1941 and 1942 /Mum/2014(AY-2008-09) dated 11.5.2016,(iii)Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Promain Ltd V/s DCIT reported in (2006)95 11 ITD 489 (SB)(iv) J M Trading Corporation V/s ACIT (2008) 20 SOT 489 and (v) Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarvamangalam B…

ITO 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RADIUM CREATION, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 220/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Goli Srinivas Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 40

…ed upon the following decisions:– i) Indian Overseas Bank v/s CIT, [2002] 250 ITR 146 (Mad.); ii) Indian Overseas Bank v/s CIT, [990] 183 ITR 200 (Mad.); iii) Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v/s CIT, [2002] 246 ITR 206 (Mad.); iv) CIT v/s Wipro Finance Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 153; and v) CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. [1992] 312 ITR 254 (SC). 15. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, as the unrealised gain being a notional income is not taxable, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous for not bringing to tax the unrealised foreign exchange gain. In this context, he relied upon the decisio…

HARSH DEEP CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 299

…jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act, there should be initiation of search and thereafter there should be actual conducting of search. 9. The expression “search is initiated” was explained by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Wipro Finance Ltd (323 ITR 467) and the head notes read as under:- “Held, allowing the appeals, that while assigning meaning to any expression in any provision of a statute, the context in which the particular expression is used had to be borne in mind. The expression “search initiated” had to be interpreted to mean the “Commencement and conducting of the initial search”, i.e.…

CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd.