M/s United Brewaries Ltd. v. DCIT

241 Taxmann 299High Court2016#11342 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing M/s United Brewaries Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, Corporate Circle3(1), Chennai vs. M/S.Shriram Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 439/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.439/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Finance Ltd., No. 21St Century Business Centre 1, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. 4, Lady Desikachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 10.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Financing For Commercial Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income For 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.439/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd., No. 21st Century Business Centre 1, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, 4th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. 4, Lady Desikachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [PAN:AAACS7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appell…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1376/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘बी’"यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीजी.मंजुनाथ, लेखासद"यके सम$ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1376 & 1254/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Tax, 29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Corporate Circle-6(2), Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 006. PAN: AAACS 4920J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1355 & 1356/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Ye…

Sundaram Clayton Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1356/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘बी’"यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीजी.मंजुनाथ, लेखासद"यके सम$ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1376 & 1254/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Tax, 29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Corporate Circle-6(2), Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 006. PAN: AAACS 4920J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1355 & 1356/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Ye…

Sundaram Clayton Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1355/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘बी’"यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीजी.मंजुनाथ, लेखासद"यके सम$ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1376 & 1254/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Tax, 29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Corporate Circle-6(2), Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 006. PAN: AAACS 4920J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1355 & 1356/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Ye…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1254/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘बी’"यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीजी.मंजुनाथ, लेखासद"यके सम$ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1376 & 1254/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Tax, 29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Corporate Circle-6(2), Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 006. PAN: AAACS 4920J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1355 & 1356/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Ye…

Welspun Investments & Commercials Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 8(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2782/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Welspun Investments & The Income Tax Officer-8(3)(4), Commercial Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 616, 6Th Floor, 9Th Floor, “B” Wing, Trade World Aayakar Bhavan, Premises, Kamala Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacw8345B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh N. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri C.S. Anjaria (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143Section 14ASection 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Welspun Investments & The Income Tax Officer-8(3)(4), Commercial Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 616, 6th Floor, 9th Floor, “B” Wing, Trade World Aayakar Bhavan, Premises, Kamala Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 PAN: AAACW8345B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mitesh N. Shah (AR) Revenue by : Shri C.S. Anjaria (DR) Date of Hearing: 16/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28/01/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM Thi…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…r disallowance u/s. 1 4A when the provisions of the said Section as well as Rule 8D does not provide for any such exception. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of United Breweries Ltd v DCIT (241 Taxmann 299). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of EIH associated holes v DCIT which has not become final. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that in the assessee’s case the set off period of eight years had expired and thus the assessee is not eligible for set off of such unabsorbed…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…r disallowance u/s. 1 4A when the provisions of the said Section as well as Rule 8D does not provide for any such exception. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of United Breweries Ltd v DCIT (241 Taxmann 299). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of EIH associated holes v DCIT which has not become final. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that in the assessee’s case the set off period of eight years had expired and thus the assessee is not eligible for set off of such unabsorbed…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…r disallowance u/s. 1 4A when the provisions of the said Section as well as Rule 8D does not provide for any such exception. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of United Breweries Ltd v DCIT (241 Taxmann 299). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of EIH associated holes v DCIT which has not become final. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that in the assessee’s case the set off period of eight years had expired and thus the assessee is not eligible for set off of such unabsorbed…

M/s United Brewaries Ltd. v. DCIT (241 Taxmann 299) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax