Kochi Refinery Ltd. v. DCIT

4 ITR (Trib) 95Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#11613 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing Kochi Refinery Ltd. v. DCIT

R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 690/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 690/DEL/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) R.Systems International Ltd. Vs. DCIT B-104 A, Circle-15(1) Greater Kailash-I New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AABCR9541B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Sh. Sh. A.T.Panda, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.12.2012 passed by CIT(A)…

Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3476/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3476/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3357/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 8Section 80Section 80I

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99 and the same amount was added back in the regu…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizerz& Chemicals. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3357/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 8Section 80Section 80I

The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 419/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 115Section 14A

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998- 99 and the same amount was added back in the reg…

The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2556/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 115Section 14A

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998- 99 and the same amount was added back in the reg…

M/S. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Jt.CIT., Gnr Range, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2473/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 115Section 14A

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998- 99 and the same amount was added back in the reg…

M/S. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Addl.CIT., Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 115Section 14A

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998- 99 and the same amount was added back in the reg…

M/S. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1170/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 115Section 14A

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998- 99 and the same amount was added back in the reg…

The Dcitgandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 115Section 14A

…ngly, the assessee cannot be made liable for paying tax under the provision of MAT for the year in which it was written back. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kochi Refinery Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 4 ITR (Trib) 95. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “33. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and the learned Departmental representative. It is an admitted fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was made in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1998- 99 and the same amount was added back in the reg…