DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.

57 DTR 179Reported decision2011#10948 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 37Section 69ASection 69CSection 148Section 151Section 143(3)Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 282asection 65asection 140apurposive interpretationsection 150(1)real income theorysection 140approval under section 151faceless assessment schemesection 282section 65b

Judgments citing DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…le Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra) is binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179 (Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon the said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to sidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the ground that it did not take into consideration a particular provision of law.” Second rej…

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…le Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra) is binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179 (Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon the said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to sidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the ground that it did not take into consideration a particular provision of law.” Second rej…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
Section 250Section 69A

…mbay High Court in the case of Hexaware\nTechnologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra)\nis binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High\nCourt.\nThe Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v.\nGujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179\n(Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the\njurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon\nthe said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to\nsidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional\nHigh Court on the ground that it did not take into\nconsideration a particular provision of law.”\nSeco…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…le Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra) is binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179 (Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon the said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to sidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the ground that it did not take into consideration a particular provision of law.” Second rej…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…le Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra) is binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179 (Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon the said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to sidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the ground that it did not take into consideration a particular provision of law.” Second rej…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…le Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra) is binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179 (Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon the said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to sidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the ground that it did not take into consideration a particular provision of law.” Second rej…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4148/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 250Section 69A

…mbay High Court in the case of Hexaware\nTechnologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra)\nis binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High\nCourt.\nThe Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v.\nGujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179\n(Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the\njurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon\nthe said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to\nsidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional\nHigh Court on the ground that it did not take into\nconsideration a particular provision of law.”\nSeco…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4147/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 250Section 69A

…mbay High Court in the case of Hexaware\nTechnologies (supra)andGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap (supra)\nis binding not the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High\nCourt.\nThe Hon’ble Jurisdictional tribunal in the case of DCIT v.\nGujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179\n(Mum)(Trib) it was held that has to follow the decision of the\njurisdictional High Court without making any comment upon\nthe said decision, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to\nsidetrack and/or ignore the decision of the jurisdictional\nHigh Court on the ground that it did not take into\nconsideration a particular provision of law.\nSecon…

SUNIL AGARWAL,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 SUNIL AGARWAL, Vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR LAXMI NIWAS, NEAR POST OFFICE, KANKHAL, HARIDWAR UTTARAKHAND (PAN: AANPA0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, Adv. Department by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Hladwani on 16.11.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VESUVIOUS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 563/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] I.T.A Nos.563&564/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-10, -Vs.- Vesuvious India Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacv 8995 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Harish Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Harish Agarwal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. (supra) has been followed by various Tribunals & High Courts in the following cases- CIT -vs.- Millipore India P. Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 219 (Kar) DCIT -vs.- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (2011) 57 DTR 179 (Mum) ACIT -vs.-Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. (ITA. No. 1519/Mds/2011 dtd. 30-11-2011) CIT -vs.- Emmbros Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 83 CCH 159 (HP) CIT -vs.- EssaeTeraoka Ltd. (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 164 (Kar) 16. It is noted that the Co-ordinate bench in the case of EIH Ltd vs DCIT in ITA No.1808/Kol/2007 dt. 11.09.2015 after considering the decision of the…