Dy. CIT Vs. Sarabai Pitamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 8 SOT 815 (Mum.) CIT v. Gom Industries Ltd.

215 CTR 1Supreme Court of India#19887 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Dy. CIT Vs. Sarabai Pitamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 8 SOT 815 (Mum.) CIT v. Gom Industries Ltd.

M/S Sumeru Enterproses, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 888/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…81 (All) KNP Securities (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33 DTR 210 (Mumbai) (Trib) Dy. CIT Vs. Sarabai Pitamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 8 SOT 815 (Mum.) CIT Vs. Gom Industries Ltd. & 299 ITR 42 (MP) DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. reported in 215 CTR 1 (SC) ” We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 392/JP/2003 pertaining to assessment year 1996-97 decided the issue of Work-in-Progress in favour of the assessee. Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 282/JP/2010 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05, in para 7 of its order has decided t…

M/S Sumeru Enterproses, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 887/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…81 (All) KNP Securities (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33 DTR 210 (Mumbai) (Trib) Dy. CIT Vs. Sarabai Pitamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 8 SOT 815 (Mum.) CIT Vs. Gom Industries Ltd. & 299 ITR 42 (MP) DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. reported in 215 CTR 1 (SC) ” We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 392/JP/2003 pertaining to assessment year 1996-97 decided the issue of Work-in-Progress in favour of the assessee. Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 282/JP/2010 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05, in para 7 of its order has decided t…

M/S Sumeru Enterproses, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 886/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…81 (All) KNP Securities (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33 DTR 210 (Mumbai) (Trib) Dy. CIT Vs. Sarabai Pitamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 8 SOT 815 (Mum.) CIT Vs. Gom Industries Ltd. & 299 ITR 42 (MP) DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. reported in 215 CTR 1 (SC) ” We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 392/JP/2003 pertaining to assessment year 1996-97 decided the issue of Work-in-Progress in favour of the assessee. Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 282/JP/2010 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05, in para 7 of its order has decided t…

M/S Ajay Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5347/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyay: 2009-10 Sh.Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. Acit, Range 2 Prop. M/S Gee Emm Steel Industries New Delhi B 274, Nehru Round, Nit Faridabad Pan: Aaqpg 1172 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Ved Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. K.K.Jaiswal, Sr.D.R. Order

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. K.K.Jaiswal, Sr.D.R

…1 A.Y. 2009-10 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Faridabad 3. On appeal the First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the AO. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) reported in 215 CTR 1(SC) was held as misplaced, for the reason that the impugned A.Y. was 2009-10 i.e. after the coming into effect the Proviso to S.36(1)(iii). Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard Shri Ved Jain, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri KK Jaiswal, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 4.1. The Proviso to S.36(1) (iii) of th…

Dy. CIT Vs. Sarabai Pitamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 8 SOT 815 (Mum.) CIT v. Gom Industries Ltd. (215 CTR 1) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax