Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. DCIT (IT AT Pune)

167 TTJ 102Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#23141 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. DCIT (IT AT Pune)

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(1)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…aid provision really deals with contractors who are businessmen, e.g., building contractor, or contractor who does work of transportation or loading of goods, or for supply of materials. Further it was held in Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs. DCIT (IT AT Pune)- 167 TTJ 102, that in common parlance, a contractor is understood as a person who carries out the assigned work as per the directions given by the contractee. Ashwami Sales and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.294/Nag./2023 13. Ld. CIT(A) mistook the expressions ―Any person responsible for paying any sum‖ and ―any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2200/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle- 14, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. Kenersys India Pvt. Ltd., S.No.49, Industry House, Mundhwa, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadck2089H Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Mesran Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : .21.01.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 30.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “A. Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Allowing That The Disallowance Of Provision For Warranty Of Rs.75,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer? B. For These & Such Other Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of The Hearing, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. C. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All The Grounds Of Appeal.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply, Erection, Installation, Operations & Maintenance Of Wind Turbine Generators (Wtg) & Other Associated

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Mesran

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2200/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Circle- 14, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/s. Kenersys India Pvt. Ltd., S.No.49, Industry House, Mundhwa, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent PAN : AADCK2089H Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Mesran Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 03.01.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncemen…

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1420/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

…aid provision really deals with contractors who are businessmen, e.g., building contractor, or contractor who does work of transportation or loading of goods, or for supply of materials. Further it was held in Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs. DCIT (IT AT Pune)- 167 TTJ 102, that in common parlance, a contractor is understood as a person who carries out the assigned work as per the directions given by the contractee. 13. Ld. CIT(A) mistook the expressions “Any person responsible for paying any sum” and “any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor)”, appearing in Sec. 194C(1) and categorize…