Garments (Mum) 95 ITD 363. 2) CIT Vs. Shashi Theatre (Guj) 248 ITR 126. 3) Oil India Ltd. v. CIT (Cal)

141 ITD 133Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16713 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Garments (Mum) 95 ITD 363. 2) CIT Vs. Shashi Theatre (Guj) 248 ITR 126. 3) Oil India Ltd. v. CIT (Cal)

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…63 is not available to the ld.PCIT and in this connection, he relied on the following judgments : 1) Sonal Garments (Mum) 95 ITD 363. 2) CIT Vs. Shashi Theatre (Guj) 248 ITR 126. 3) Oil India Ltd Vs. CIT (Cal) 138 ITR 836. 4) CIT Vs. Fortleza Developer (Mum) 141 ITD 133 (confirmed by High Court in 374 ITR 510). 7. On the other hand, the ld.CIT D.R. vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld.A.R. that the claim was examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC comprises of two things (1) claim for deduction u/s 80IC in respect…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Fortaleza Developers, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

ITA 7454/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 80I

…1 It is noted by us that in A.Y. 2007-08, this issue was raised for the first time by the CIT by passing order u/s 263. The matter reached before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee by its order dt 12-10-2012 reported in 141 ITD 133. It is noted by us that the Tribunal not only quashed the order u/s 263 but also discussed and adjudicated the issue involved therein on its merits. Therefore, we find it relevant to refer and reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal hereunder: 5.5 We have carefully considered the version of Ld. CIT in the light of avai…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Fortaleza Developers, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

ITA 7453/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 80I

…1 It is noted by us that in A.Y. 2007-08, this issue was raised for the first time by the CIT by passing order u/s 263. The matter reached before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee by its order dt 12-10-2012 reported in 141 ITD 133. It is noted by us that the Tribunal not only quashed the order u/s 263 but also discussed and adjudicated the issue involved therein on its merits. Therefore, we find it relevant to refer and reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal hereunder: 5.5 We have carefully considered the version of Ld. CIT in the light of avai…

Fortaleza Developers, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 15(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

ITA 7117/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 80I

…1 It is noted by us that in A.Y. 2007-08, this issue was raised for the first time by the CIT by passing order u/s 263. The matter reached before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee by its order dt 12-10-2012 reported in 141 ITD 133. It is noted by us that the Tribunal not only quashed the order u/s 263 but also discussed and adjudicated the issue involved therein on its merits. Therefore, we find it relevant to refer and reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal hereunder: 5.5 We have carefully considered the version of Ld. CIT in the light of avai…

Fortaleza Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

ITA 7116/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 80I

…1 It is noted by us that in A.Y. 2007-08, this issue was raised for the first time by the CIT by passing order u/s 263. The matter reached before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee by its order dt 12-10-2012 reported in 141 ITD 133. It is noted by us that the Tribunal not only quashed the order u/s 263 but also discussed and adjudicated the issue involved therein on its merits. Therefore, we find it relevant to refer and reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal hereunder: 5.5 We have carefully considered the version of Ld. CIT in the light of avai…

Garments (Mum) 95 ITD 363. 2) CIT Vs. Shashi Theatre (Guj) 248 ITR 126. 3) Oil India Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) (141 ITD 133) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax