(i) CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.

286 ITR 652High Court#24232 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2016.

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.

Shri Arihant Traders, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed with our directions as given above

ITA 2255/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Arihant Traders, Pr. Cit-20 211- B Prabhat Bldg, Pirmal Chambers बनाम/ Deodhar Rd Matunga (Cr) Mumbai- Vs. Mumbai -400019 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ablfs6608N Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e deemed to be 6 Arihant Traders put to use as soon as the Lessor hands over the assets to the Lessee. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments: (i) CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. 317 ITR 236 (Bom) (ii) CIT v. Reetu Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 286 ITR 652 (Del) 3.3. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed in detail all the arguments of Ld. Counsel. It was submitted that the assessee was permitted to make first sale of its lottery tickets on 01.04.2010 and therefore, it could not be said that the assessee commenced its business during the year under consideration. Since the first sale was not pos…

M/S Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 194HSection 194JSection 234BSection 35ASection 40Section 54

…that assessee was paying only service charges and no payments were made with respect to assets. 80. Ld. counsel relied on following decisions: - ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT 350 ITR 527; - CIT Vs. Shaan Finance (I) Ltd. 231 ITR 308 (SC) - CIT Vs. Reetu Finlease P. Ltd. 286 ITR 652 (Del.). 81. Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra), the company in course of its business had given on lease plant & machinery to its customers for the use by the customer for its business. It was held that such company was for the purpose of section 32, the owner and was an owner who was using the assets for its business an…

CIT-7

ITA/190/2015HC Delhi09 Dec 2015

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…the Assessee that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim since the plant and machinery in question was ready to use and was actually run on trial basis at the three stations. The ITAT referred to the decisions in CIT v. Reetu Finleys Pvt. Ltd. 286 ITR 652 (Del) and CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Ind. Ltd. 247 ITR 12 (Del). Submissions of counsel 13. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent-Assessee. 14. Mr. Sahni sought to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court…