Which sections of the Income Tax Act does M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. Excise & Others come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C, Section 92BA(i), Section 92CA(3), Section 14A, Section 253(2A).

M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. Excise & Others

Q: How many judgments cite M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. Excise & Others?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. Excise & Others (62 Taxmann.com 135), spanning 2018 to 2025.

62 Taxmann.com 135Supreme Court of India2015#4713 most cited

What is M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. Excise & Others authority for?

Judgments in M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Fibre Boards have overruled earlier decisions, preventing assessees from relying on those overruled precedents.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others · M/s. Fibre Boards · overruled judgments · Section 263 · specified domestic transactions · TPO · assessment · 143(3) · 144C · 92BA(i) · 92CA(3) · 14A · 253(2A) · 142(1) · 143(2) · General Finance Co.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 92BA(i)Section 92CA(3)Section 14A Section 253(2A)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba(i)section 92ba specified domestic transaction section 144c(4)section 92b section 40a(2)section 92ca(3)section 10b section 40a(2)(b)transfer pricing adjustment section 92ca section 40a

Judgments citing M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. Excise & Others

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…neral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee cannot use them in his favour. In addition to these verbal arguments, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR) submitted written submissions before the Bench, the same is reproduced below, in brief, to the extent applicable for our discussion: "In the present case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata p…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2006-07 A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India 3 r d Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 The Add it ional Commissionerof Income tax Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Room No 545 , Aykar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulka…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF MIDTOWN PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Asst. CIT 15, Shivaji Marg Circle-7(2) New Delhi-110015 Vs. Delhi PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, DLF Midtown Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15, Shivaji Marg Delhi Vs. New Delhi-110015 PAN:AAFCD3015Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal by the assesse…

DLF MIDTOWN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: \nMs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19\nAPPELLANT\nM/s. InMobi Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,\n7th Floor, Block Delta,\nB Block,\nEmbassy Tech Square,\nKadubeesanahalli,\nVarthur Hobli,\nBangalore - 560 103.\nPAN: AACCI7117F\nRESPONDENT\nThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCircle - 3(1)(1),\nVs.\nBangalore.\nAssessee by :\nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/w.\nShri L. Bharath, CA\nRevenue by :\nMs. Neera Malhotra, CI…

PANACEA BOITEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 PAN AAACP5335J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate Department by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing: 09.05.2024 Date of 22.05.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM The appeal is against Lear…

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 477/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Smt. Irvind Gujral ITO, Vs. S-12 Mandawa Enclave, Sirsi Ward-1(3), Road Near Metro Hospital, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABOPG 8194 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj…

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIAL LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU CIRCLE , MUMBAI

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

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. ACIT LTU, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR) सुनवाई की त…

RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E (JV),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-32, KOLKATA

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

ITA 135/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

…8 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E to E (JV) Copy of General Clause Act, 1897 enclosed as Annexure-A 1. The following decisions, (1) M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.) interpret the matter in favour of the Revenue's stand that omission of a provision shall have to be interpreted as per sec.6 and sec.6A of GCA 1897 and read in togetherness. For proceedings which stem from the omitted provision, or part thereof, including consequential proceedings, it shall not mean an obliteration from the very beg…

M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kananjia, CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…neral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee can not use them in his favour. I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 343/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV 5 In addition to these verbal arguments, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR) submitted written submissions before the Bench, the same is reproduced below, in…

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kananjia, CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…neral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee can not use them in his favour. I.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 343/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV 5 In addition to these verbal arguments, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR) submitted written submissions before the Bench, the same is reproduced below, in…

MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner of (formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar and Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACM7863L Assessee by : Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar & Shri Pratik Podar, ARs Revenue by : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR Date of hearing: 03.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by Mahin…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…ITA Nos: 1767 and 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 37 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member] ITA No.: 1767/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Bank of India …………………….. Appellant Taxation Department, 8th floor, Star House, C 5 G Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACB0472C] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai ………………….Respondent ITA No.: 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai …………………….. Appellant Vs. Bank of India…

SHREE SAI SMELTERS (I) LIMITED,BYRNIHAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.228/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 92B

…eneral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee cannot use them in his favour. 16. Regarding the first grievance of ld DR to the effect that in the assessment year 2014-15, the clause (i) of section 92BA was in force therefore, the exercise 11 Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd. Assessment Year:2014-15 of the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act during th…

SHIVANI ISPAT AND ROLLING MILL (P) LTD.,BYRNIHAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.227/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shivani Ispatand Rolling Mill Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong (P) Ltd. 13Th Mile, Tamulkuchi, Byrnihat, G.S. Road, Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcs 3465 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri J.P. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri T. Hunar, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Shillong, In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Shg/10083/2018-19 Dated 17.04.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) / 92C(4) / 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 30/11/2018. 2.When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 10.06.2020, Passed By The Tribunal In The Case Of M/S Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. & Srinath Ji Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 895& 1035/Kol/2019, For Assessment Year 2014-15.Wherein Thetribunal Held That Effect Of Omission Of Clause (I) Of Section 92Ba W.E.F 01.04.2017 Had The Effect Of It Being Omitted From Its Inception Hence, Reference

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 92B

…eneral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee cannot use them in his favour. 16. Regarding the first grievance of ld DR to the effect that in the assessment year 2014-15, the clause (i) of section 92BA was in force therefore, the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act during the currency of the Act is 11 Shivani Ispat and Rolling Mil…

M/S. BHARTIA-SMSIL(JV),GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Dal, Addl. CIT, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 92BSection 92C

…the Act is very much valid. ii. Second grievance is that ld DR relied on the following two judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court, namely: (1) M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.) and (2) M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.) and contended that these two judgments interpret the matter in favour of the Revenue. iii. Third grievance is thatthe judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court, which were relied by the assessee in its favour, in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. V Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 536 and in Royala Corporation P. Ltd. V Director of Enf…

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 895/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR

Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

…neral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee can not use them in his favour. In addition to these verbal arguments, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR) submitted written submissions before the Bench, the same is reproduced below, in brief, to the extent applicable for our discussion: “In the present case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata…

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

ITA 1035/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR

Section 263Section 92BSection 92C

…neral Finance Co. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC) were overruled by the Hon`ble Supreme Court by its subsequent judgments in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others - 2015(326) ELT 209(S.C.), and M/s. Fibre Boards 62 Taxmann.com 135 (S.C.), therefore, the assessee can not use them in his favour. In addition to these verbal arguments, Shri Vijay Shankar, (CIT-DR) submitted written submissions before the Bench, the same is reproduced below, in brief, to the extent applicable for our discussion: “In the present case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata…

SHRI LINGARAJU BANGALORE LINGAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2892/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P Meena

For Appellant: Shri. Guru Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S.T Seshadri, JCIT – DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 54G

…ent of such undertaking to such area and incurred expenses on such other purpose as may be specified in the scheme framed by central government for purpose of the section. 5.4.1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs CIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 135 held that, even an agreement to purchase is good enough, and that assessee cannot be denied exemption under section 54G for the reason that plant and machinery has not been purchased. It is clear that for the assessment year in question all that is required for the assessee to avail of the exemption contained in the section is to 'utilize'…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2