(i) Eimco KCP Ltd. v. CIT

242 ITR 659Supreme Court of India2000#6127 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)section 263section 26opportunity of being heardinterestsection 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessdocument

Judgments citing (i) Eimco KCP Ltd. v. CIT

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3463/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…n and undecided by the ld. CIT(A), till such time, the PCIT is entitled to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. This proposition was elaborated and affirmed by the by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eimco K.C.P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 242 ITR 659 which, after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kelpunj Enterprises, (1977)108 ITR 294 (Ker) has reiterated the legal proposition that the Commissioner can interfere with the order of the Income Tax Officer on a point which was directly in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) under Sec.263 of the Act. The Hon'bl…

ANSHIT BUILDERS & HOME FIN CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT DELHI-1, NEW DELHI

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…[2018] 406 ITR 242 (Karnataka); vi. S.K. Jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 127 ITD 217 (Agra) (TM) 3.5 Ld. DR on the contrary has relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 3 [2000] 242 ITR 659 (SC) but same is resisted by Ld. AR as not applicable by submitting that since the assessment year involved in the said appeal beofer the Hon’ble Supreme Court was AY 1969-70 and during the said assessment year 1969-70, Explanation-1 to section 263(1) of the Act was not available in section 263 of the Act, and clause (c) of Explanation-1 was inse…

SHRI VISHAL RAMESHCHANDRA MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Takvani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…be open to the Commissioner to revise an assessment while an appeal against it is still pending before the CIT(A), because the AO's order must be regarded as subsisting and effective in law, despite the pendency of the appeal. In the case of EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd.242 ITR 659 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court I.T.A No. 56/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 7 Shri Vishal Rameshchandra Mehta vs. Pr. CIT held that Commissioner could interfere, acting under section 263, with order of ITO on point which was directly in appeal before AAC. In the case of Ramlal Onkarmal44 ITR 578 (Assam), the High Court held that merely because a…

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

…ng/2021 EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 60 of 66 premium cannot be considered as expenditure and it will also be considered as capital in nature. 20.11 Ld. DRP relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Eimco KCP Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 659 and said that similar to the case referred the Company has also allotted shares in order to garner and secure the services their knowledge and know how continuously for enduring benefits of the organization and in line with the supreme court judgement, DRP said that the shares issued against assets/technical know-how cannot be claimed as revenue…

ASHOK KUMAR SINHA,GHAZIABAD vs. PRCIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…itabh Bachhan (69 taxmann.com 170, 240 Taxman 221, 384 ITR 200, 286 CTR 113) 11. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/(1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 12. EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. Vs CIT (109 Taxman 151, 242 ITR 659, 159 CTR 137) (SC) 13. CIT Vs Jaykumar B. Patil (236 ITR 469, 156 CTR 476) (SC) 14. Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 98 taxmann.com 234 (Bombay) 15. CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) 16. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208. 202 Taxman 201, 347 ITR 22) 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all th…

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 35A

…s towards capital contribution in DCIPL-the Indian company, does not amount to expenditure at all to become eligible for claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act. AO relied heavily on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. EIMCO & KCP Ltd. 242 ITR 659. CIT(A) upheld the said disallowance following his order later for the A.Y. 1999-2000. 22. Status of similar issue in earlier A.Yrs. (A): An attempt was made by the Revenue to deny the claim us.35AB of the Act in the A.Yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 either under the provisions of section 148 or u/s.263 or u/s.154 of the Act, as the case may be…

M/S MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in the terms indicated

ITA 414/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Unit 401-404, 4Th Floor, Circle-6(1), Copia Corporate Suites, New Delhi. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcm8454G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2010 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Nos.1,2,3 & 16 Being General In Nature Are Dismissed. 3. Grounds Of Appeal No.4,5,6 & 12 Which Relate To Disallowance Of Technical Fee

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…technical fee paid by the assessee towards receipt of certain rights to use technology by the assessee for the manufacture of Tyres was expenditure which was clearly in the nature of capital expenditure and relied upon the judgements cited as KCP Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 659 (S.C.) and CITS Vs Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 637 (Del.). 7 12. Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the order passed by A.O., observed in para 5.2 of the impugned order to the effect that “the appellant itself has submitted that these expenses were incurred with a view to establish a manufacturing facility as a part of its on- going business strate…

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…towards capital contribution in DCIPL-the Indian company, does not amount to expenditure at all to become eligible for claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act. AO relied heavily on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. EIMCO & KCP Ltd. 242 ITR 659. CIT(A) upheld the said disallowance following his order later for the A.Y. 1999-2000. 22. Status of similar issue in earlier A.Yrs. (A): An attempt was made by the Revenue to deny the claim us.35AB of the Act in the A.Yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 either under the provisions of section 148 or u/s.263 or u/s.154 of the Act, as the case may b…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…towards capital contribution in DCIPL-the Indian company, does not amount to expenditure at all to become eligible for claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act. AO relied heavily on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. EIMCO & KCP Ltd. 242 ITR 659. CIT(A) upheld the said disallowance following his order later for the A.Y. 1999-2000. 22. Status of similar issue in earlier A.Yrs. (A): An attempt was made by the Revenue to deny the claim us.35AB of the Act in the A.Yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 either under the provisions of section 148 or u/s.263 or u/s.154 of the Act, as the case may b…

JYOTI STRUCTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 41, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Structures Ltd. Dcit Central Circle- Valecha Chambers, 6Th 7(2), Mumbai, Room Vs. Floor, New Link Road, No. 655, 6Th Floor, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj2499R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajit K. Srivastava, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajit K. Srivastava, DR
Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 17(2)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Structures Ltd. DCIT Central Circle- Valecha Chambers, 6th 7(2), Mumbai, Room Vs. floor, New Link Road, No. 655, 6th floor, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACJ2499R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajit K. Srivastava, DR Date of Hearing : 05/07/2018 Date of pronouncement : 08/08/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an…

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3881/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…ed by the AO and was therefore not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court after analyzing aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 30 Co.Op. Housing Societies “29. In EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [(2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC)], a question arose whether Commissioner can exercise power under Section 263 of Act, 1961, while agreeing with the order of assessment against which appeal is pending before Commissioner (A), involving the point upon which notice under Section 263 is issued, the Court up held the notice issued under Section 263 and held that such notice can…

VALLABHNAGAR OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3659/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…ed by the AO and was therefore not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court after analyzing aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 30 Co.Op. Housing Societies “29. In EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [(2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC)], a question arose whether Commissioner can exercise power under Section 263 of Act, 1961, while agreeing with the order of assessment against which appeal is pending before Commissioner (A), involving the point upon which notice under Section 263 is issued, the Court up held the notice issued under Section 263 and held that such notice can…

SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…ed by the AO and was therefore not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court after analyzing aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 30 Co.Op. Housing Societies “29. In EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [(2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC)], a question arose whether Commissioner can exercise power under Section 263 of Act, 1961, while agreeing with the order of assessment against which appeal is pending before Commissioner (A), involving the point upon which notice under Section 263 is issued, the Court up held the notice issued under Section 263 and held that such notice can…

VITHALNAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3656/MUM/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…ed by the AO and was therefore not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court after analyzing aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 30 Co.Op. Housing Societies “29. In EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [(2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC)], a question arose whether Commissioner can exercise power under Section 263 of Act, 1961, while agreeing with the order of assessment against which appeal is pending before Commissioner (A), involving the point upon which notice under Section 263 is issued, the Court up held the notice issued under Section 263 and held that such notice can…

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3655/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…ed by the AO and was therefore not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court after analyzing aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 30 Co.Op. Housing Societies “29. In EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [(2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC)], a question arose whether Commissioner can exercise power under Section 263 of Act, 1961, while agreeing with the order of assessment against which appeal is pending before Commissioner (A), involving the point upon which notice under Section 263 is issued, the Court up held the notice issued under Section 263 and held that such notice can…

JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2363/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…ed by the AO and was therefore not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Hon’ble High Court after analyzing aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 30 Co.Op. Housing Societies “29. In EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [(2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC)], a question arose whether Commissioner can exercise power under Section 263 of Act, 1961, while agreeing with the order of assessment against which appeal is pending before Commissioner (A), involving the point upon which notice under Section 263 is issued, the Court up held the notice issued under Section 263 and held that such notice can…

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7367/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…period if the then surviving employees may actually exercise the right of buying the employees stock option. Therefore, such contingent expenditure is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act in the light of the following decision: (i) Eimco KCP Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs Reinz Taibros (P) Ltd. (2001) 252 ITR 637 (DEL) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT 124 TTJ (Del) (iii) 13 Korn Ferry 771. 6.6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the disallowance of Rs.52,08,592/- made by the L40 is confirmed. Ground ofAppealNo.3 is not allo…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7139/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…period if the then surviving employees may actually exercise the right of buying the employees stock option. Therefore, such contingent expenditure is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act in the light of the following decision: (i) Eimco KCP Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs Reinz Taibros (P) Ltd. (2001) 252 ITR 637 (DEL) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT 124 TTJ (Del) (iii) 13 Korn Ferry 771. 6.6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the disallowance of Rs.52,08,592/- made by the L40 is confirmed. Ground ofAppealNo.3 is not allo…

M/S MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3355/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 37(1)

…technical fee paid by the assessee towards receipt of certain rights to use technology by the assessee for the manufacture of Tyres was expenditure which was clearly in the nature of capital expenditure and relied upon the judgements cited as KCP Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 659 (S.C.) and CITS Vs Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 637 (Del.). 12. Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the order passed by A.O., observed in para 5.2 of the impugned order to the effect that “the appellant itself has submitted that these expenses were incurred with a view to establish a manufacturing facility as a part of its on- going business strategy…