Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT

111 ITD 124Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#16545 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…n though part of the liability may represent waiver of principal amount of loan." i. In this case the Tribunal has essentially relied on the following decisions: (a) Decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Gulf Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 111 ITD 124 (Hyd.) (b) Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra) (c) Rain Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 40 SOT 265 (Hyd.) (SB) ii. In the case of Gulf oil, (Hyderabad ITAT decision), it is noticed that, the issue under consideration was whether advisory fee debited as an extra-ordinary item in the Profit and Loss account was to be considered while c…

MUKUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No 3 of the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2004-2005 is allowed

ITA 679/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mukand Limited, The Income Tax Officer 3(2)(2), Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 226 Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gajendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Nilu Jaggi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gajendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi (DR)

Section 115J

…e deciding ground No 3 of the appeal. As per the Ld. counsel the assessee relied upon the following cases to substantiate its contention: 1. CIT vs. M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. ITA No. 198 of 2009 dated 15.04.2009 (Bom) 2. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 2008 111 ITD 124 (Hyd); 3. CIT vs. Khetan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. 2019 221 CTR 501 (Del) 4. TamilNadu Cements Corporation Ltd. JCIT 2012 349 ITR 58 (Mad) 5. DCIT vs. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Ltd.. 3. The coordinate Bench after hearing both the sides allowed the MA and recalled the order dated 05.12.2018 for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating ground…

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 80I

…of this contention, he relied on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Duke Offshore Limited –vs.- DCIT [45 SOT 399] as well as the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gulf Oil Corporation Limited –vs.- ACIT [111 ITD 124]. He also contended that the nature of loan redemption reserve is similar to the debenture redemption reserve and the same, therefore, is allowable as deduction while computing book profit under section 115JB as per clause (b) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB. In support of this I.T.A. Nos. 230 & 340/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 13…

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ven though part of the liability may represent waiver of principal amount of loan." i. In this case the Tribunal has essentially relied on the following decisions: (a) Decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 111 ITD 124 (b) CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra) (c) Rain Commodities Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 41 DTR 449 (Hyd.) (SB). ii. In the case of Gulf oil, (Hyderabad ITAT decision), it is noticed that, the issue under consideration was whether advisory fee debited as an extra-ordinary item in the Profit and Loss account was to be considered while compu…

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A