DCIT v. Elitecore Technologies Private Ltd.

165 ITD 153Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#19502 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Elitecore Technologies Private Ltd.

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1621/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

…liance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT reported 390 ITR 271 and allowed in favour of the assessee. 11.2. Further the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Bank of India also distinguished the decision rendered in the case of DCIT -Vs- Elitecore Technologies (P.) Ltd. 165 ITD 153(Ahd.), based on which the CIT(A) had given the directions in the impugned order against which the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal in Bank of India (supra) made the following observations: "78. Learned Departmental Representative's plea is only fit to be noted and rejected. It is relevant to note that this decision was re…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1517/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…(2017) 390 ITR 271 (Bom) wherein their lordships hold in very clear terms that Section 40(a)(ii) does not cover the same. We find in this factual backdrop that this tribunal’s co- ordinate bench decision in DCIT Vs. Elitecore Technologies Private Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 153 (Ahd) has distinguished the foregoing judicial precedent to conclude that the same is not a binding precedent since coming from the hon'ble non- jurisdictional high court as under: “27. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confi…

TATA MOTORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tata Motors Ltd. The Commissioner Of Bombay House, 24, Homi Vs. Income-Tax (Ltu), 29Th Mody Street, Hutatma Floor, Centre 1, World Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaact2727Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath K., Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath K., DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…he CIT directed the AO to withdraw the above allowance mentioning that the said expense is not covered u/s 28 to 44 of the Act and hence the expenditure is irregular in nature in view of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Elitecore Technologies Pvt. Ltd 165 ITD 153 (Ahd). Similarly, the same was added back while computing book profit as per section 115JB of the Act. Tata Motors Ltd. 8 4.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the CIT was not justified in ignoring the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 390 ITR 271 (Bom) dated 20.12.2016 and follo…