Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

118 ITR 200Supreme Court of India1979#826 most cited

What is Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT authority for?

Interest on borrowed funds is deductible as a business expense under section 36(1)(iii) if incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, not for sentimental or personal reasons. The phrase 'for the purpose of business' is broader than 'for the purpose of earning income'.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT · section 36(1)(iii) · business expenditure · commercial expediency · interest on borrowed funds · deduction · purpose of business · earning income · broader scope

Also reported as

10 CTR 375

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 14ASection 148Section 133(6)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151deletion of penaltytransfer pricing orderinterest free advancesfresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authoritysection 57(iii)specified domestic transaction

Judgments citing Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 740/HYD/2012[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-19

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kamblem/S Hyderabad Distilleries & Vs Acit Wineries Pvt. Ltd. A-4, Ida, Uppal Circle-2(2) Hyderabad-39 Hyderabad Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 5

…relied upon the decision in reference to expenditure incurred for the purpose of business which are as follows: • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 (SC) 9ITA No 740/Del/2012 • S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions in reference to reasonableness of expenditure to be seen from point of view of business: • CIT vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC) • J. K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC) • Aluminium Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs.…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Sona Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5761/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Mahindra Sona Limited Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(2) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Bunder, Mumbai-400001. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan No. Aaacm3524A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Mahindra Sona Limited Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(2) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Room No. 545, 5th floor, Bunder, Mumbai-400001. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. PAN No. AAACM3524A Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. Arju Garodia, DR Assessee by : Mr. Prasad Bapat, AR Date of Hearing : 25/05/2018 Date of pronouncement: 29/06/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The capt…

Allied Media Network P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3545/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Allied Media Network Pvt. Dcit, Range-7(1), Aayakar Ltd., P-2, Level 3, Percept Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. House, 22 Raghuvanshi Mumbai-400020 Estate, 11/12 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcp9975H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ia Cement Bharat Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 595 (Del), it has been held that interest-free advance giving to sister concern need not inhibit the deduction if such loan or advance has been given for business purposes. Also as held in Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), the expression “for the purpose of business” occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of making or earning income”. Examined in the background of the above position of law, the reasons given by the AO for making disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is vague and based on presumptions. Therefore, we delete…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…t therefore contumacious or dishonest. Hence, there was no deliberate intention on its part to delay the filing of the appeal. Kindly refer the cases of Ratanlal Dangi v/s ITO (1995) 51 TTJ 611 (JP) and CIT v/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC?) in support. 3. Power to condone delay must be exercised liberally: It is submitted that the settled judicial view is that the decision to condone delay should be exercised liberally. Such matter should be judged broadly and not in a pedantic manner. The Apex Court has again & again reiterated that the expression “sufficient cause” should r…

M/S. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2045/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2045/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-5, Phase-Iii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7255J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ca & Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-24, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…are fulfilled, it is not possible and open to the Revenue to make a part disallowance, unless there is a positive finding recorded that a part of the amount borrowed was not used for the purposes of the business. As was observed in Madhav Prasad's case [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC), the expression "for the purpose of business" appearing in section 36(1)(iii) and section 37(1) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of making or earning income" used in section 57(iii). Therefore, the scope for allowing a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) is much wider than the one available under section 57(iii).” 41. Th…

Triumph Hospitals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5735/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Triumph Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 801 & 802, Raheja Central Circle-29, बनाम/ Empress, Veer Savarkar Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marg, Prabhadevi, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabct4993K

Section 28Section 3Section 36(1)(iii)Section 9

…ctional High Court in CIT vs Bombay Samachar Ltd 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) and Amma Bai Hajee Issa vs CIT 51 ITR 835 (Mad.) 2.4. The expression “for the purposes on business” is wider in scope than “for the purposes of earning income” (Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (118 ITR 200)(SC) and L.M. Thappar vs CIT 173 ITR 577 (Cal.). Interest on borrowal is allowable as deduction only when the borrowals are used for the purpose of business. In S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (supra), where holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary and the holding company advances borrowed money to its subsidiary, the same was used by t…

DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…) which states that " the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income under section 28 of the Act. 21. In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC) ; AIR 1979 SC 1291, this court held that the expression " for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., AY 2009-10 in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains", and this has been the consistent view of this court. 22. In our opinion, the High Court in…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Incite Homecare Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal
Section 36Section 43(1)Section 69

…yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. Similarly considering the principle of law as laid down in another decision of the Apex Court itself namely in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (S.C) their Lordship took into consideration the fact that the position would be different if the borrowed amount was donated for some sentimental or personal reason and not on the grounds of commercial expediency. In such a situation, it has been held that the claim of interest could not have been allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In the facts…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…s. Accordingly, he supported the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A). He relied on the following judgments: I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 i) Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (118 ITR 200 (SC) ii) CIT vs. V.I. Baby (254 ITR 248 (Ker.) iii) Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT (239 ITR 795) (Mds.) 7.1 The Ld. DR distinguished the judgments relied upon by the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that the facts in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Savera (supra) are that the advance was made with assessee-firm’s own funds and interest paid on borrowed…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…s. Accordingly, he supported the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A). He relied on the following judgments: I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 i) Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (118 ITR 200 (SC) ii) CIT vs. V.I. Baby (254 ITR 248 (Ker.) iii) Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT (239 ITR 795) (Mds.) 7.1 The Ld. DR distinguished the judgments relied upon by the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that the facts in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Savera (supra) are that the advance was made with assessee-firm’s own funds and interest paid on borrowed…

M/S.Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 409/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…s. Accordingly, he supported the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A). He relied on the following judgments: I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 i) Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (118 ITR 200 (SC) ii) CIT vs. V.I. Baby (254 ITR 248 (Ker.) iii) Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT (239 ITR 795) (Mds.) 7.1 The Ld. DR distinguished the judgments relied upon by the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that the facts in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Savera (supra) are that the advance was made with assessee-firm’s own funds and interest paid on borrowed…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 1998-

ITA 246/MUM/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 1998-99 The Dcit-2(3)(2), M/S Sheba Properties Limited, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, C/O Telco Nanavati Mahalaya, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaecs0591F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2018

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…e. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the order in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Jatia vs.CIT 118 ITR 200 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in CIT vs. Srishti Securities P. Ltd. 183 Taxman 159, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the facts of the case relied upon by the revenue are different from the facts of the present case, therefore, the ratio laid down in t…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…s :- - CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc. (1967) 65 ITR 381 - J K Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612(SC) - CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) Page 15 - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd.: 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…y, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has relied upon the following decisions: a) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC) b) CIT V Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd 82 ITR 166 [SC] c) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 [SC] 8. Reliance was also placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises Vs. CIT reported at 254 ITR 216 [SC] where, as per the ‘Head Notes’, it has been held as under: “In its principal order, the Tribunal had concluded that the addition was unsustainable because it had b…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…er and for a purpose unconnected with the business” (emphasis supplied) 14.3. He submitted that the said approach is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning. & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) and Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT : 118 ITR 200 (SC) also. 14.4. By placing reliance on the decisions in Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 118 ITR 261 (SC); , CIT v Nestle India Ltd. 337 ITR ITR 103 (Del. HC) (affirmed by the Supreme Court), CIT vs Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 256 (Del), CIT vs Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd: 200 Taxman 43 (Del. Mag.) (HC); , Sony I…

M/S Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1056/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Sukumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 14A

…record any documentary evidence to contradict that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions contained in s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6.2. We shall now analyse the judicial view on a similar issue as under: (i) In the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Under s. 10(2)(iii), three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to enable the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital, namely, (a) that money (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee, (b) that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of bu…

ITO, Ward-1, Jharsuguda vs. Umesh Kumar Poddar, Jharsuguda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-2012 ITO, Ward-1, Jharsuguda. Vs. Sri Umesh Kumar Poddar, Near Union Bank, Main Road, Jharsuguda. PAN/GIR No.ACUPP 0482 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR Date of Hearing : 23/08/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /08/ 2017 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- Cuttack dated 29.1.2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2.…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1695, 1696 & 1697/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 & CO No.84/Mds/2014 (in ITA No.1697/Mds/2014) The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd., Income-tax, v. South India House, Company Circle-V(1), 73, Armenian Street, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 001. PAN AAACS3789B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respo…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1695, 1696 & 1697/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 & CO No.84/Mds/2014 (in ITA No.1697/Mds/2014) The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd., Income-tax, v. South India House, Company Circle-V(1), 73, Armenian Street, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 001. PAN AAACS3789B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respo…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1695, 1696 & 1697/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 & CO No.84/Mds/2014 (in ITA No.1697/Mds/2014) The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd., Income-tax, v. South India House, Company Circle-V(1), 73, Armenian Street, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 001. PAN AAACS3789B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respo…