Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. v. DCIT (116 ITD 372)

Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow vs. M/S Dev Bhoomi Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

…JCIT (2006) 101 ITD 103 (ITAT, Mumbai) (iv) Addl. CIT vs. Om Oils & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 552 (Del.) (v) Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 158 (SC) (vi) Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (ITAT, Mumbai) (vii) Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd., In Rel3 ITR 457 (Lahore) (viii) Jaikishan Dadlani vs. ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138 (ITAT, Mumbai) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in his order and has heavily placed reliance on the findings of learned CIT(A). 5. We have heard the ri…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Retail Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Leena Shrivastava

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Oxygen Ltd. V/s. Dy. CIT – [(1994) 49 ITD 355 (Cal)] 15 I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 867/Mum/2017 M/s Future Retail Ltd. c. Prism Cement Ltd. V/s. JCIT – [(2006) 101 ITD 103 (Mum)] d. DepakFertilisers and Petrochemicals Copn. Ltd. V/s. DCIT – [(2009) 116 ITD 372 (Mum)] e. DCIT V/s. Brijlaxmi Leasing & Finance Ltd. – [(2009) 118 ITD 546 (Ahd)] f. Graviss Hospitality Ltd. V/s. Dy. CIT – [(2015) 53 taxmann.com 63 (Mum – Trib.)] g. Sunita Gupta Share Borkers Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No.4188/Del/2010 vide order dated 7.12.2011. The above case laws amply support the proposition that amount received as a capital…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed, and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2350/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita Nos. 2277/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito A-401, Samundra Complex, Ward-1(2), 3Rd Floor, Pratyakash- Nr. Hotel Classic Gold, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Kar-Bhavan, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 Pan No. Aaa Cb6 654 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, & Shri PFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma CIT DR& L.P

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rties, the same actually been crystallized in A.Y. 2010-11 and such expenses are allowable in nature. In this aspect we relied upon the judgment passed by the jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. vs. DCIT 116 ITD 372(Mum.) where principle of consistency were followed. Thus, we find no justification in disallowing such expenses as aforesaid by the authorities below. Hence, we delete the same. Assessee’s appeal is, thus, allowed. ITA No. 2350/Ahd/2015 (Revenue’s Appeal):- 8. The Revenue has filed the instant appeal with the following grounds:- “1. The ld. CIT…

M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed, and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2277/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita Nos. 2277/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito A-401, Samundra Complex, Ward-1(2), 3Rd Floor, Pratyakash- Nr. Hotel Classic Gold, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Kar-Bhavan, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 Pan No. Aaa Cb6 654 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, & Shri PFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma CIT DR& L.P

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rties, the same actually been crystallized in A.Y. 2010-11 and such expenses are allowable in nature. In this aspect we relied upon the judgment passed by the jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. vs. DCIT 116 ITD 372(Mum.) where principle of consistency were followed. Thus, we find no justification in disallowing such expenses as aforesaid by the authorities below. Hence, we delete the same. Assessee’s appeal is, thus, allowed. ITA No. 2350/Ahd/2015 (Revenue’s Appeal):- 8. The Revenue has filed the instant appeal with the following grounds:- “1. The ld. CIT…

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Provogue (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1578/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 5

…ital of the company. In support of his contention, the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) DCIT v/s Brijlaxmi Leasing and Financing Ltd., 118 ITD 546; ii) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd., 49 ITD 355; iii) Deepak Fertilizer and Petrochemicals Ltd. v/s DCIT, 116 ITD 372. 9. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. He was of the view that the amount received by the assessee towards share warrant was in the course of its business, therefore, is in the nature of unsecured loans. Thus, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Solid Container Ltd. v/s D…

Balasore Alloys Ltd, Orrissa vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Pawan Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1170/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri. N.P. Singh (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 253

…l viz; Jaikishan Dadlani Versus ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138(Mumbai), Prism Cement Ltd Versus ACIT [2006] 101 ITD 103(Mumbai), DCIT Versus Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Ltd [2009] 118 ITD (AHD), Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Versus DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (Mumbai) and Asiatic Oxygen Ltd Versus DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 355 (Mumbai). It was argued that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT TV Sundaram Ayenger & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) relied by lower authorities is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 5. On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue strongly supported the orders of aut…

Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. v. DCIT