Framatone Connector OEN Ltd. v. DCIT

157 Taxmann 116Reported decision2006#22812 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 44AB

Judgments citing Framatone Connector OEN Ltd. v. DCIT

Avirat Rajendra Sonpal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalure

ITA 2198/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Avirat Rajendra Sonpal Dy. Commissioner Of 54/B, Miramar Co-Op Hsg, Income Tax, Cpc, Society, 3, L. Jagmohandas Bangaluru, Vs. Marg Napeansea Road, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahps2278R Assessee By : Shri Vishal D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2024 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM Avirat Rajendra Sonpal Dy. Commissioner of 54/B, Miramar Co-op Hsg, Income Tax, CPC, Society, 3, L. Jagmohandas Bangaluru, Vs. Marg Napeansea Road, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAHPS2278R Assessee by : Shri Vishal D. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR Date of hearing: 11.07.2024 22.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the assessee is preferred against the order of the L…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Samtel Colour Limited

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA-1152/2008HC Delhi30 Jan 2009
For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Mr.Mohan Prasad Gupta andFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra & Ms Kavita Jha
Section 260A

…earning apparatus of a business enterprise. 5.3 To support the Revenue’s contention that the impugned expenditure is on capital account the Learned counsel, Ms Prem Lata Bansal has cited the judgment of the Framatone Connector OEN Ltd vs. DCIT; (2006) 157 Taxmann 116. The said judgment is based on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT; (1997) 225 ITR 792. The judgment of the Supreme Court on which the Kerala High Court has relied heavily dealt with the issue with regard to fee paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase of authorise…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Samtel Color Limited

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/1152/2008HC Delhi30 Jan 2009
For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Mr.Mohan Prasad Gupta andFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra & Ms Kavita Jha
Section 260A

…earning apparatus of a business enterprise. 5.3 To support the Revenue’s contention that the impugned expenditure is on capital account the Learned counsel, Ms Prem Lata Bansal has cited the judgment of the Framatone Connector OEN Ltd vs. DCIT; (2006) 157 Taxmann 116. The said judgment is based on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT; (1997) 225 ITR 792. The judgment of the Supreme Court on which the Kerala High Court has relied heavily dealt with the issue with regard to fee paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase of authorise…

Framatone Connector OEN Ltd. v. DCIT (157 Taxmann 116) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax