Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

106 TTJ 494Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18646 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

C.M. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, Delhi

ITA 6202/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

…e of order • 05- 01-2016. ITAT Chandigarh Bench. Maya Gupta vs. CIT in ITA NO. 5701/DEL/2014, ITAT Delhi Bench. • Ram Kishan Dass vs. ITO 149 Taxman 55, ITAT Delhi Bench. • Crown Frozen Foods vs. Addl.CIT 93 TTJ 485 ITAT Mumbai Bench. • Pawan Kumar vs AO, 106 TTJ 494 ITAT Jodhpur Bench. • CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 256 (Del). • CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 • (Del.). • CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd., 323 ITR 632 (Bom). 4. Ld DR however supported the findings of Ld. Tax authorities. 5. It can be appreciated form the impugned…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…us one. Further as per the Ld. AR, audit report u/s.44AB of the Act, was filed along with the return and the AO had perused such audited return while completing the assessment. Relying on the decision of Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Pawan Kumar v. AO [106 TTJ 494], Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined the audit report it could not be said that he had not applied his mind to the relevant material. As per the Ld. AR the CIT had no where given a finding that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Reliance was also placed on Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in ITA N…

T D Satyan(HUF), Chickmagalur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1482/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George, Qccountant Member & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…e case of Tech Books Electronics Services (P) Ltd Vs Addl.CIT (100 ITD 125) wherein it was held that merely because of change in ownership the exemption cannot be denied. Another decision relied upon by him is in the case of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT (106 TTJ 494) wherein it was held that where a firm is converted into a company and there was change only in the composition of ownership and not the undertaking and business, the exemption allowed to the firm u/s 10A of the Act, could not be denied to the company merely because it had been separately granted recognition. 5. Having heard both sides and having…

Gxs India Technology Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1444/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George, Qccountant Member & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…e case of Tech Books Electronics Services (P) Ltd Vs Addl.CIT (100 ITD 125) wherein it was held that merely because of change in ownership the exemption cannot be denied. Another decision relied upon by him is in the case of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT (106 TTJ 494) wherein it was held that where a firm is converted into a company and there was change only in the composition of ownership and not the undertaking and business, the exemption allowed to the firm u/s 10A of the Act, could not be denied to the company merely because it had been separately granted recognition. 5. Having heard both sides and having…

Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (106 TTJ 494) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax