Elscope Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

313 ITR 293High Court#20554 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 112(1)Section 115JAASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Judgments citing Elscope Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…Everplus Securities and Finance Ltd. vs DCIT: 101 ITD 151 (Del.) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 106 ITD 1 (Del.) 36. Specific reliance, in this regard, was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Elscope P. Ltd vs. CIT: 313 ITR 293 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble Court while dealing with the issue of taxability of profit arising to the assessee company on reduction of liabilities observed that for purposes of taxability under section 28(iv) of the Act, there must be nexus or 51 connection between the business of the assessee and the benefit/perquisite sought to be taxed. To simi…

M/S. SIMPSON UNITECH WIRELESS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…olding investments and there is no business as such, therefore there cannot be any benefit or perquisite in the course of business. 15. Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Elscope Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 313 ITR 293 wherein it has been held that the income from capital account transaction will not be hit by Section 28(iv). He further submitted that investment pursuant to 23 I.T.A. No.1953, 101/DEL/2014 & 2075 & 2989/DEL/2017 object in MOA does not ipso facto lead to inference that there is a business activity otherwise. Also, Section 28(iv) will not apply…

M/S. ACORUS UNITECH WIRELESS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…olding investments and there is no business as such, therefore there cannot be any benefit or perquisite in the course of business. 15. Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Elscope Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 313 ITR 293 wherein it has been held that the income from capital account transaction will not be hit by Section 28(iv). He further submitted that investment pursuant to 23 I.T.A. No.1953, 101/DEL/2014 & 2075 & 2989/DEL/2017 object in MOA does not ipso facto lead to inference that there is a business activity otherwise. Also, Section 28(iv) will not apply…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ACORUS WIRELESS UNITECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2075/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…olding investments and there is no business as such, therefore there cannot be any benefit or perquisite in the course of business. 15. Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Elscope Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 313 ITR 293 wherein it has been held that the income from capital account transaction will not be hit by Section 28(iv). He further submitted that investment pursuant to 23 I.T.A. No.1953, 101/DEL/2014 & 2075 & 2989/DEL/2017 object in MOA does not ipso facto lead to inference that there is a business activity otherwise. Also, Section 28(iv) will not apply…

Elscope Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (313 ITR 293) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax