DCIT v. Sak Industries (P.) Ltd.

1 SOT 798Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#18546 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

liable to taxsection 56scrutiny assessmenttransfercompanysection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing DCIT v. Sak Industries (P.) Ltd.

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…rance business, since compensation pertains to impairment of profit making apparatus itself, same is non taxable capital receipt; Reliance is rightly placed by assessee on Supreme Court order in case of Saurashtra Cement 325 ITR 422, Delhi ITAT Sak Industries 1 SOT 798, Also it is rightly stated that in absence of cost of said bundle of rights being computable, no capital gains liability can arise in hands of appellant. Reliance is rightly placed on Supreme Court order in D. P. Sandhu Bros.273 ITR Page 1, that where cost is inderminate, capital gains cannot be charged to tax. Delhi High Court latest verdict in ca…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…rance business, since compensation pertains to impairment of profit making apparatus itself, same is non taxable capital receipt; Reliance is rightly placed by assessee on Supreme Court order in case of Saurashtra Cement 325 ITR 422, Delhi ITAT Sak Industries 1 SOT 798, Also it is rightly stated that in absence of cost of said bundle of rights being computable, no capital gains liability can arise in hands of appellant. Reliance is rightly placed on Supreme Court order in D. P. Sandhu Bros.273 ITR Page 1, that where cost is inderminate, capital gains cannot be charged to tax. Delhi High Court latest verdict in ca…

ACIT Cent .Cir6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & of Income Tax, CC-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19th 15th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCK8268P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Rakesh Ranjan Respondent by : K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar Date of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.12.20…

Digital Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3258/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

…ent between ‘LAND’. and ‘DEL’ which were also filed before the AO and the ld. CIT(A)(p.16-22 of the paperbook). Reliance is placed by him on the decision in the case of Ms. Payal Kapur vs. ACIT (2006) 98 ITD 19 (Delhi); DCIT vs. Sak Industries (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SOT 798 (Delhi) and Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The ld. counsel of the assessee states that the case of M/s Natco Pharma Ltd. (supra) relied on by the ld. CIT(A) is distinguishable from the facts in the present case. 5.1 In the written submission filed on 30th August 2016, the ld. counsel reiterates the same facts. He relies on the decisions mentioned…

DCIT v. Sak Industries (P.) Ltd. (1 SOT 798) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax