CIT Vs. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (iv) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT

259 CTR 325High Court2012#20162 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (iv) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT

DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Minerals Managements Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5478/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…se. The said decision has also been dealt/ distinguished in the following case laws rendered by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court: -Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 349 ITR 112 -Kanchenjunga Advertising (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 340 ITR 595 - CIT v. Societex: 259 CTR 325 - CIT v. Kas Movie (P) Ltd.: 207 Taxman 183 - CIT v. Madhushree Gupta: 216 Taxman 65 (Mag.) Considering the entirety of facts and legal position discussed above, penalty levied qua disallowance of depreciation and interest stands deleted.” 2.4 However Ld. CIT(A) did not sustain the grounds of appeal with regard to claim that the impugned penalty…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…taxmann.com 227 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroleum (P) Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxmn 322 (Supreme Court) (iii) CIT Vs. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (iv) T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT (2007) 161 Taxmann 340 (SC) (v) CIT Vs. Societex 259 CTR 325 (Delhi) (vi) ITAT Delhi Bench in ACIT Vs. Ashok Raj Nath (2013) 33 taxmann.com 588 With these submissions, the Ld. A/R prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty and the action of Ld. CIT(A) must be upheld. 13 ITA No. 799/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT vs. Shri Chandrakant G. Patel 15. We have considered the rival contentions of bot…

Apexx Texpro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. M/S. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4891/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jain & Vikas SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…uery was raised for all the items. It, therefore, stands established that the assessee company had been suffering persistent losses and it is not an attempt to reduce the profit or tax. 8. vs DCIT (ITA NO.5112/Del/2012 (ITAT Del); (ii) CIT vs Societex (2012) 259 CTR 325 6 (Del); (iii) B.L. International vs ACIT, (ITA No.1590/Del/2014)(ITAT Delhi); (iv) CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom); (v) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC); and (vi) CIT vs. Sania Mirza (2013) 259 CTR 386 (AP HC) in support of the principle that it is possible that the assesse could m…

The Mantola Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 204/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P.Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaithe Mantola Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward 38(4), Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi 541, Mantola Pahae Ganj, New Delhi Gir / Pan :Aaajt1976A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesd Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

…udgments plays in the paper book by the Ld. AI are as under: a) Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 124 ITR 15 (SC); b) CIT vs. AT & T communication service India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 342 ITR 257 (Del); c) CIT vs. Societex reported in 259 CTR 325 (Del); d) CIT vs. Tudor Knitting works Pvt. Ltd., reported in 366 ITR 236 (P&H); On the contrary the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that assessee had wrongly claimed deduction under section 80 P of the Act and therefore the assessing officer was justified in levying penalty under section 271 (1) (c ) o…