Leather Stores v. ITO

234 ITR 1702High Court1998#12491 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing Leather Stores v. ITO

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. ARISTO REALTY DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Anadi Verma, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Lakhani, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 147Section 148

…ge of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

PELICAN CREDITS & SCURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed on jurisdictional issue

ITA 2413/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ge of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. ITAs No. 2413/Mum/2017 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under s…

DCIT- CIR- 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IMPERIAL PROCUREMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2737/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Jacinta Zimik Vishai, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ge of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

DCIT4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5712/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5712/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner Of Arcadia Shares & Stock Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, 328/324, Ninad Chs, 1St Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, Bldg No. 7, Service Mumbai-400 020 Road, Near Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaca4562G प्रत्याक्षेप M./ Co No. 44/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 5712/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09) Arcadia Shares & Stock The Dy. Commissioner Of Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) 328/324, Ninad Chs, 1St Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Bldg No. 7, Service Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Bhavishya Nidhi Road, Mumbai-400 020 Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dr. K. Shivaram, Ms Neelam Jadhav, Ars सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…ome-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 18 CO No. 44/Mum/2019 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

PANTHER FINCAP & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1326/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Panther Fincap & Management The Asst. Commissioner Of Services Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle Bhupen Chambers, Ground 40, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Floor, 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 023 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./ Pan No. Aaacp3045P अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Dr. P Daniel, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ould obviously be on income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. MANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3759/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mani Exports 16(3), Mumbai, Matru Mandir, 1903 Panchratna Opera House, Vs. 2Nd Floor, R. No. 206 Tardeoi Mumbai-400 004 Rd, Mumbai-07 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaefm2320F Revenue By .. Shri Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr Assessee By .. Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 880H

…ge of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

M/S. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…ge of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1282/MUM/2006[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Novartis India Ltd. Circle 7(1) Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Acit Circle 7(1), Vs. Besant Road, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Appellant .. Respondent Novartis India Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Circle 7(1) Road, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Acit Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Pan No. Aaach2914F Revenue By .. Shri Sanj Kumar Agarwal, Dr Assessee By .. Shri J.D. Mistry, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 13-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 13-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

…ge of opinion by the income-tax authorities, which would not be valid as held by the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT[1979] 119 ITR 996 1 ;Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO[1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[1998] 234 ITR 1702(Delhi), etc. 12. In the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case O.N.G.C.'s (supra), it has been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. 13. Although we are of the opinion that the law existing on the date of the impugned notice under section 147/148 has to b…

Leather Stores v. ITO (234 ITR 1702) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax