CIT v. Yahoo India Private Limited

216 Taxmann 66High Court2013#23784 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Yahoo India Private Limited

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MUKUND LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6437/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalin The Matter Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Rd, ……………. Appellant New Marine Lines, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri. Kirit Kamtar & Parth Achwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari, Sr. AR CIT

Section 115Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER In the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Rd, ……………. Appellant New Marine Lines, Mumbai v/s Mukund Ltd, Bajaj Bhavan, 3rd Floor, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai ……………. Respondent PAN-AAACM5008R Revenue by :Shri. D.G. Pansari, Sr. AR CIT Assessee by :Shri. Kirit Kamtar & Parth Achwal, Advs Date of Hearing- 22.4.2019 Date of Order – 14.05.19 O R D E R SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. This appeal filed by the Revenue ag…

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4343/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. Circle 14(3)(1) D-37/1 Ttc Midc Turbhe Vs. 455 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Mumbai – 400073 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aabcvt2577P Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri. Ravikiran, Dr Revenue By Assessee By .. Miss Dinkle Hariya, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 17-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 24-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…issions of, the appellant. In view of the above two High Court base decisions, this issue becomes debatable. If the issue becomes debatable then the penalty cannot be levied in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Yahoo India (P) Ltd. 216 Taxmann 66 (Bom), Delhi High Court decisions in the case of DCIT vs. Shivalik Ltd. (2011) 15 Page 2 of 4 Thyrocare Technologies Ltd A.Y:11-12 Taxmann.com 341 (Delhi), Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Gurdaspur Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd; (2013) 354.ITR 27 (P&H). Hence, in view of the above decisions as this issue is debatab…

ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 3372/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DRFor Respondent: Ms. ManshiPadhiar, AR

Section 1Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI DT GARASIA, JM AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, AM I.T.A. No. 3372/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT-14(2)(1), M/s IDEA CELLUAR LTD. 432, 4th Floor, AaykarBhavan, 5thfloor, Windsor, off CST road, Mumbai-400020 Kalina, near Vidyanagari, Vs. Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098 PANNo-AAACB2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Respondent by : Ms. ManshiPadhiar, AR Date of Hearing : 06/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06 /02/2017 O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA, JM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)…