Dell India Pvt.Ltd. v. JCIT

382 ITR 310Reported decision2016#17800 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)fresh tangible materialvaluation of sharessection 40a(2)(b)share capital and share premiumsection 40a(2)disallowance of interest expenditurekelvinatoramalgamationsection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencydisallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Dell India Pvt.Ltd. v. JCIT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…d view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. Thus, reopening has held to be invalid on this ground also. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karn) reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra). The law is thus very clear that an assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act can be reopened only on the basis of existence of tangible material coming into income possession of the AO after conclusion of such assessment proc…

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…d view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. Thus, reopening has held to be invalid on this ground also. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karn) reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra). The law is thus very clear that an assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act can be reopened only on the basis of existence of tangible material coming into income possession of the AO after conclusion of such assessment proc…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

…d view on the above proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. Thus, reopening has held to be invalid on this ground also. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karn) reiterated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra). The law is thus very clear that an assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act can be reopened only on the basis of existence of tangible material coming into income possession of the AO after conclusion of such assessment proc…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Ltu), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(viia)

…our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the Assessee to the fact that correctness of the said decision has been doubted and a reference has been made to a larger bench by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dell India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. JCIT 382 ITR 310 (Karna) and hence the reference to the said decision by the CIT(A) is not of any use. Regarding the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Popular Vehicles & services Ltd. (2010) 19 taxmann.com 333 (ker), the same is contrary to the ITA Nos.1832 and 1837/Bang/2018 Page 20 of 22 law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the…

M/S Telekom Malaysia Berhad vs. Union of India

Appeal is dismissed

WA/991/2018HC Karnataka03 Feb 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4

…e said judgment would be of no avail to the appellant. 7. Reliance is also placed on yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (LTU) and another v. Dell India Pvt.Ltd. reported in [2016] 382 ITR 310 wherein it was held that in the facts of the present case, the view of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition is maintainable on the question of jurisdiction of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was upheld. It is needless to state that the 12 judgment has been rendered on the facts and circumstance…

Dell India Pvt.Ltd. v. JCIT (382 ITR 310) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax