DCIT v. Roxy Investments Pvt Ltd.

24 SOT 227Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#20035 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(2A)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 263

Judgments citing DCIT v. Roxy Investments Pvt Ltd.

Shakuntala Sadanand Shet Legal Heir of Late Sadanand Sheshgiri Shet, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 3 6 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3616/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi & Pranav ZanwarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 10Section 10(2)(a)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 263

…s the addition made in not in accordance with law and the ground of appeal No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed.” He further respectfully relied on the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi Bench “G” in the case of DCIT vs Roxy Investments Pvt Ltd (2008) 24 SOT 227 (Del). The relevant paragraph 13 is reproduced as below: - “13. A careful perusal of clause (ii) of Explanation to section 115JB(2) will reveal that though the said clause speaks about the amount of ‘income', it also speaks of “if, any such amount is credited to Profit & Loss Account. Thus, while reading the said clause as a whole, it will become…

Birla Group Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 2494/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeethe Birla Group Holding Vs Acit, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Private Limited, (As A Aaykar Bhavan, 127, Dewas Road, Successor To Turquoise Bharatpuri, Ujjain, Madhya Investments & Finance Pvt Pradesh, 456010. Ltd) Industry House, 1St Floor, 159, Churchgate Reclamation, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaacr2250C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi & Pranav ZanwarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 263

…the addition made in not in accordance with law and the ground of appeal No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed.” He further respectfully relied on the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi Bench “G” in the case of DCIT vs Roxy Investments Pvt Ltd (2008) 24 SOT 227 (Del). The relevant paragraph 13 is reproduced as below: - “13. A careful perusal of clause (ii) of Explanation to section 115JB(2) will reveal that though the said clause speaks about the amount of ‘income’, it also speaks of “if, any such amount is credited to Profit & Loss Account. Thus, while reading the said clause as a whole, it will become…

J.P. Morgan Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7822/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 J.P. Morgan Services P. Ltd., Dcit (Osd)-8(1) Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai- बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Chakala Junction, Andheri(E) Mumba-400093 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

…ee submitted that the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee. To substantiate his claim, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to 3 decisions namely (i)Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 510(Del), (ii) DCIT Vs Roxy Investments (P) ltd (2008) 24 SOT 227 (Del) and (iii) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd Vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 305. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 6. We have carefully perused the orders referred to by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Moser Baer India…

J.P . Morgan Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 8987/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 J.P. Morgan Services P. Ltd., Dcit (Osd)-8(1) Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mumbai- बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Road, Chakala Junction, Andheri(E) Mumba-400093 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

…ee submitted that the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee. To substantiate his claim, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to 3 decisions namely (i)Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 510(Del), (ii) DCIT Vs Roxy Investments (P) ltd (2008) 24 SOT 227 (Del) and (iii) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd Vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 305. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 6. We have carefully perused the orders referred to by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Moser Baer India…

DCIT v. Roxy Investments Pvt Ltd. (24 SOT 227) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax