(India) Ltd. v. CIT

144 ITR 317High Court1983#19224 most cited

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

Judgments citing (India) Ltd. v. CIT

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…nst the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Co. (Ltd.). For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid decisions. We agree with the view taken by the High Courts of Calcutta [Molins (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 317 (Cal) and Brooke Bond (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 390 (Cal) : TC 15R.590], Bombay (in) Lubrizol (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 25 (Bom) followed in several other decisions of that Court], Karnataka [CIT ITA No.197 and 508/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2012- 13 vs. International Instruments Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 936 (Kar), Madras [Sund…

AVAYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 202, Platina, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3592N Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 202, Platina, 2nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECA3592N Assessee by : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 869/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 250Section 90Section 90nSection 91

…h the provisions of the IT Act. Sec. 4 of the Surtax Act read with the definition of "chargeable profits" and the First Schedule make the position abundantly clear. We agree with the view taken by the High Courts of Calcutta [Molins (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 317 (Cal) and Brooke Bond (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 390 (Cal) : TC 15R.590], Bombay (in) Lubrizol (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 25 (Bom) followed in several other decisions of that Court], Karnataka [CIT v. International Instruments Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 936 (Kar), Madras [Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 646 (Mad), And…

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)

Section 80J

…ver, the Supreme Court observed, that where the tax was levied, OR capital assets used for the purpose of earning profits, it was a permissible deduction. The Ld. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Molins of India Ltd. 144 ITR 317 wherein it was held that surtax is of the same character as that of 41 income tax and similar treatment would follow for surtax too and therefore, it cannot be held that it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.L.M Maneklal Industries Ltd. 172…