DCIT v. K. K. Doshi and Co.

245 ITR 849High Court2000#5569 most cited
21

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 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 250Section 263

Issues it is cited on

convertible foreign exchangesection 80hheligible businesssection 80companysection 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing DCIT v. K. K. Doshi and Co.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NUWAVE E SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

…exchange gain as it is does not have a different character from the export turnover and it is also part of export profits. In the case of C IT v/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR (A.T.) 0150-[ITAT-Delhi] relying upon DCIT v/s. K. K. Doshi and Co. [2000] 245 ITR 849 (Bom) held Any profit or loss as a result of foreign exchange fluctuation ultimately goes to increase or reduce the figure of export turnover recorded initially by the assessee in its books of account. The basic character of receipt on account of foreign exchange thus remains the same. Therefore income from foreign currency fluctuation is part of…

NIHO CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

…exchange gain as it is does not have a different character from the export turnover and it is also part of export profits. In the case of C IT v/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR (A.T.) 0150-[ITAT-Delhi] relying upon DCIT v/s. K. K. Doshi and Co. [2000] 245 ITR 849 (Bom) held Any profit or loss as a result of foreign exchange fluctuation ultimately goes to increase or reduce the figure of export turnover recorded initially by the assessee in its books of account. The basic character of receipt on account of foreign exchange thus remains the same. Therefore income from foreign currency fluctuation is part of…

MMTC LTD. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1),,

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

ITA 1722/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

…acturing activity. Therefore, the test to be applied in all such matters is, whether interest, service charges, commission accrue out of the main business activity of the company and whether they were operational income. The case of K. K. Doshi and Co. [2000] 245 ITR 849 (Bom) shows, that service charges of Rs. 19.60 lakhs did not represent operational income and, therefore, came within Explanation (baa). However, we find that the Department just looks at the nomenclature of the receipt and if it finds that the nomenclature is rent, interest, commission then without any further inquiry into the nature of business…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Dept
Section 80Section 80H

…onstitute operational income. In the circumstance and considering the fact that though the Hon'ble court have taken into account the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. K. ITA Nos.562 & 755/Bang/2007 Page 6 of 42 Doshi & Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Kantilal Chotelal 246 ITR 439 (Born) but not over ruled them, it cannot be accepted that the receipts that are only incidental to the main business activity of the appellant company though might be arising out of said activity are still required to be taken as part of the business profits for the computation of deduction under s…

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 562/BANG/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Dept
Section 80Section 80H

…onstitute operational income. In the circumstance and considering the fact that though the Hon'ble court have taken into account the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. K. ITA Nos.562 & 755/Bang/2007 Page 6 of 42 Doshi & Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Kantilal Chotelal 246 ITR 439 (Born) but not over ruled them, it cannot be accepted that the receipts that are only incidental to the main business activity of the appellant company though might be arising out of said activity are still required to be taken as part of the business profits for the computation of deduction under s…

PRISM CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 804/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon'ble J ft K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti 248 ITR 641 (J & K). It is noted that the Department has relied upon the decision in K. K. Doshi (245 ITR 849)(Bom.), which has been reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 297 ITR 38(SC), wherein, the main point was that as to whether the amendment to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. 1st April, 1992, is prospective in nature or is retrospective. This Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 3076/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. 2 3573/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0104P अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…sr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 4 Explanation read with section 80HHC(3) only provides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only sim…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…sr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 4 Explanation read with section 80HHC(3) only provides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only sim…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…sr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 4 Explanation read with section 80HHC(3) only provides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only sim…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…sr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 4 Explanation read with section 80HHC(3) only provides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only sim…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…sr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 4 Explanation read with section 80HHC(3) only provides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only sim…

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…sr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 4 Explanation read with section 80HHC(3) only provides a machinery to realise the intent of this restrictive expression in the substantive provision, as settled in the following decisions: i. CIT usK.K.Doshi& Co. 245 ITR 849 (Bom) based on CIT vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC). ii. CIT vsKantilalChottalal 246 ITR 439 (Bom). £ \ Hi. CIT vsPravin M mehta 246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only sim…

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. M.K. Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 10BSection 115PSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Sulphur Mills Ltd., Addl. CIT Range (3), 2nd Floor, 604/605, 349-Business Point, Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Western Vs. M.K. Road, Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 PAN: AABCS8736K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Smt. M.K. Patel, A.R. & Shri K.S. Chokshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Justin, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3, MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4442/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Chate
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(9)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Shri Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. DCIT - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN: AAACL014…

UCB INDIAP.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 6681/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6681/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ucb India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito 7(3)-3, बनाम/ 504, Peninsula Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Ito 7(3)-3, Ucb India Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 504, Peninsula Towers, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi

…business and thus 90% of such amounts have to be excluded while computing deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs K.K. Doshi & Co. (245 ITR 849). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Additives Ltd Vs DCIT (25 Taxmann.Com 412) have held that the services and commission income are not derived from the business activity of the undertaking. He also relied…

ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 8503/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO 5751/Mum/ 2009 Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT, CC-34, M/s Prism Cement Ltd. R. No.104, First Floor, 2nd Floor, Rahejas, Main बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Avenue, V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN No.AAACP6224L Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s Prism Cement Ltd. DCIT, CC-34, 2nd Floor, Rahejas, Main R.…

ACIT CEN CIR CIR-34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 3859/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO 5751/Mum/ 2009 Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT, CC-34, M/s Prism Cement Ltd. R. No.104, First Floor, 2nd Floor, Rahejas, Main बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Avenue, V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN No.AAACP6224L Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s Prism Cement Ltd. DCIT, CC-34, 2nd Floor, Rahejas, Main R.…

DCIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 5751/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO 5751/Mum/ 2009 Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT, CC-34, M/s Prism Cement Ltd. R. No.104, First Floor, 2nd Floor, Rahejas, Main बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Avenue, V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN No.AAACP6224L Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s Prism Cement Ltd. DCIT, CC-34, 2nd Floor, Rahejas, Main R.…

EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 189/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 40Section 90(2)

…L./2007 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 1414/KOL/2007 Assessment Year : 2004-2005 Page 17 of 22 issue, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- K.K. Doshi & Company reported in 245 ITR 849 and CIT –vs.- Kantilal Chhotelal reported in 246 ITR 429. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below in support of the Revenue’s case on this issue. 39. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. Going by the nature of the amount in question received by…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2