Commissioner of Income Tax v. Leader Valves Ltd.

295 ITR 273High Court2007#3274 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Leader Valves Ltd. authority for?

The case is cited for the proposition that certain tax matters have been decided similarly in various High Court decisions, including Commissioner of Income Tax v. Leader Valves Ltd., indicating a consistent legal view on the subject.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Leader Valves Ltd. · 295 ITR 273 · High Court decisions · tax law · assessment proceedings · legal precedent · CIT v. Lalludas Children Trust · DIT v. Lovely Bal Shikha Parishad · DIT v. Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271A(1)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(34)section 10(23c)section 2(15)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Leader Valves Ltd.

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…in Lalludas Children Trust Vs,\nCIT,251 ITR 50(Guj) Similar view has been taken in the several cases\nincluding in DIT Vs. Lovely Bal Shikha Parishad, 266 ITR 349 (Del.), DIT Vs.\nGuru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, 272 ITR 379(Del.), CIT Vs. Leader Valves\nLtd.,295 ITR 273(P&H) and CIT Vs. DS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sag…

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…in Lalludas Children Trust Vs,\nCIT,251 ITR 50(Guj) Similar view has been taken in the several cases\nincluding in DIT Vs. Lovely Bal Shikha Parishad, 266 ITR 349 (Del.), DIT Vs.\nGuru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, 272 ITR 379(Del.), CIT Vs. Leader Valves\nLtd.,295 ITR 273(P&H) and CIT Vs. DS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sag…

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Hon’blle Punjab & Haryana HC vide order dated 05.09.2023 in ITA-101-2022. c). Rajesh Gupta V/s Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No.264/CHD/2010, ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. d) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd. as reported in (2007)295 ITR 273(P&H). e) Judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Samrat Plywood Inds., in ITA No. 595/Chd/2017. f). f) Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd V/s ACITITA No.5599/DEL/2010, ITAT, Delhi Bench atNew Delhi. g) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd355 ITR 290 GUJ HC. h) Northern India Steel Rolling Mills V/s DCITITA No.5…

VIMAL KUMAR DHALL,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-VI(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 809/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Cit(A), About Three Years Ago & Without Giving Any Fresh Hearing/Opportunity Or Asking For Another Detail, The Dismissal Of Appeal Is Not In Order. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of 2. Rs. 68,07,313/-As Made By The Assessing Officer By Not Allowing The Benefit Of Deduction Of Interest U/S 57 Of The Act As Claimed. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That In Previous Year & In Later Years, The Said Deduction Of Interest As Paid To The Parties Have Been Considered & Allowed By Way Of Order

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 57

…the following judgments since in the earlier years and later years, deduction u/s 57 had been allowed:- i). Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). II). Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC). iii). CIT Vs Leader Valves Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 273 ( P&H). 6.5 It was further argued before us that the Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly stated in para-1, page 12 of the order that no confirmation or evidence has been filed in proof of interest having been paid to various parties, 5 which finding is incorrect in view of the confirmed copies of accounts as furnished before the CIT(A) from pages 26 to 41 of…

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s G.G. Continental Trades Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. Bathinda. [PAN: -AAECG3090P] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No.513/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/s G.G. Oil & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Shop No.1, Aggarsain Nagar Bathinda. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. [PAN:-AADCG8857H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by S/Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, P.N. Arora, P.K. Singla, Advs…

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s G.G. Continental Trades Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. Bathinda. [PAN: -AAECG3090P] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. No.513/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/s G.G. Oil & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT-Cirdcle-1, Shop No.1, Aggarsain Nagar Bathinda. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. [PAN:-AADCG8857H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by S/Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, P.N. Arora, P.K. Singla, Advs…

SHRI SWARAN SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 11/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…appeal. Having not challenged the order for the Assessment Year 1997-1998 and not shown any valid cause for reconsideration, the Revenue was precluded from raising the issue in the present appeal.” f. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H) “Held, that keeping in view the principle of consistency, the Revenue could not be permitted to raise an issue in isolation only for one year in the case of one assessee, while accepting the findings on the same issue in the case of other assesses and for other years in the case of assessee.” g. PRINCIPAL CIT V/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 42…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); ∗ CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.- HC); ∗ DIT (E) vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2004] 186 CTR (Del) 384: [2004] 266 ITR 349 (Del); ∗ CIT vs. Leader Values Ltd. [2008] 214 CTR (P&H) 429: (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H); ∗ ITO vs. Moradabad Development Authority [2017] 159 ITD 971 (Delhi - Trib); ∗ Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT [2017] 394 ITR 387 (Delhi); ∗ DIT (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society [2008] 300 ITR 75 (Delhi); ∗ OTC Exchange of India vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) [2017] 85 taxmann.com 329 (Mumbai - Trib.); ∗ DIT (Exempt…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 621/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

…the earlier years and, therefore, when on an issue, a particular claim has been settled one way or the other, then the consistency has to be maintained as per the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Leader Valves Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 273 P & H (HC) and Berger Paint 266 ITR 99 Apex Court. 46 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others 36. In view of the above factual matrix and Judicial pronouncement, we find no merit in the argument of the department, and that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC is hereby held to be legally justified and therefore, all the appeals of the de…

M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 534/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

…the earlier years and, therefore, when on an issue, a particular claim has been settled one way or the other, then the consistency has to be maintained as per the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Leader Valves Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 273 P & H (HC) and Berger Paint 266 ITR 99 Apex Court. 46 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others 36. In view of the above factual matrix and Judicial pronouncement, we find no merit in the argument of the department, and that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC is hereby held to be legally justified and therefore, all the appeals of the de…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 534/ASR/2011[2009-1]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

…the earlier years and, therefore, when on an issue, a particular claim has been settled one way or the other, then the consistency has to be maintained as per the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Leader Valves Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 273 P & H (HC) and Berger Paint 266 ITR 99 Apex Court. 46 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others 36. In view of the above factual matrix and Judicial pronouncement, we find no merit in the argument of the department, and that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC is hereby held to be legally justified and therefore, all the appeals of the de…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 533/ASR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

…the earlier years and, therefore, when on an issue, a particular claim has been settled one way or the other, then the consistency has to be maintained as per the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Leader Valves Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 273 P & H (HC) and Berger Paint 266 ITR 99 Apex Court. 46 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others 36. In view of the above factual matrix and Judicial pronouncement, we find no merit in the argument of the department, and that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC is hereby held to be legally justified and therefore, all the appeals of the de…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

…the earlier years and, therefore, when on an issue, a particular claim has been settled one way or the other, then the consistency has to be maintained as per the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Leader Valves Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 273 P & H (HC) and Berger Paint 266 ITR 99 Apex Court. 46 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others 36. In view of the above factual matrix and Judicial pronouncement, we find no merit in the argument of the department, and that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC is hereby held to be legally justified and therefore, all the appeals of the de…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 507/ASR/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

…the earlier years and, therefore, when on an issue, a particular claim has been settled one way or the other, then the consistency has to be maintained as per the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Leader Valves Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 273 P & H (HC) and Berger Paint 266 ITR 99 Apex Court. 46 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others 36. In view of the above factual matrix and Judicial pronouncement, we find no merit in the argument of the department, and that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC is hereby held to be legally justified and therefore, all the appeals of the de…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Leader Valves Ltd. (295 ITR 273) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax