(i) CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

312 ITR 508Reported decision#20451 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 43(5)speculative transactionsection 40(a)(ii)corporate guaranteebusiness connectionsection 40(a)(i)section 2(24)(x)permanent establishmentsection 195section 36(1)(va)section 40(a)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the return under the Income-tax Act. Hence, no disallowance should have been made. For this proposition, the assessee referred to several case laws as under: (i) CIT v, AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 312 ITR 508 CO NOs.132, 133 & 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., (ii) Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) (iii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.)…

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the return under the Income-tax Act. Hence, no disallowance should have been made. For this proposition, the assessee referred to several case laws as under: (i) CIT v, AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 312 ITR 508 CO NOs.132, 133 & 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., (ii) Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) (iii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.)…

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the return under the Income-tax Act. Hence, no disallowance should have been made. For this proposition, the assessee referred to several case laws as under: (i) CIT v, AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 312 ITR 508 CO NOs.132, 133 & 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., (ii) Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) (iii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.)…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Foods and Inns Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection of assessee stands allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…the payments were made before the due date of the filing of the return under the Income-tax Act. Hence, no disallowance should have been made. For this proposition, the assessee referred to several case laws as under:- (i) CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 312 ITR 508 (ii) Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) CO. No.87/Mum/2017 M/s.Foods and Inns Limited. (iii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 306 (SC) (iv) Dharmendra Sharma 297 ITR 320 (Del.) (v) P.M.Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Del.) (vi) CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1 (Bom.) (vii) CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 233 ITR 530 (Bom.) (viii) CIT…

(i) CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (312 ITR 508) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax