Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 153A, Section 147, Section 153C, Section 132.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT?

568 judgments on BharatTax cite Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 802), spanning 2008 to 2026.

225 ITR 802Supreme Court of India1997#111 most cited

What is Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

568

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 225 ITR 802 · SC · enduring benefit · amortisation · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · premium on debentures · straight line method · matching principle

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 153A Section 147 Section 153C Section 132 Section 14A Section 263

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefit section 32(1)revenue expenditure intangible assets section 32 capital expenditure section 35 commercial expediency section 30 book profits amalgamation mercantile system of accounting

Judgments citing Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2637/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR

Section 143(3)Section 154

…e, cover an amount which is a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. This view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been approved by this Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 225 ITR 802 . According to the Law and Practice of Income-tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, section 37(1) is a residuary section extending the allowance to items of business expenditure not covered by sections 30 to 36. This section, according to the learned Author, covers cases of business ITA Nos. 2635-2638/Mum/2017 expenditure only, and not of business losse…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ecap Equities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2636/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR

Section 143(3)Section 154

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Investments Advisors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2635/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR

Section 143(3)Section 154

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 3476/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…se and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to allow the entire DMA commission as a deduction against the income of the year without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802] in which it was held that only proportionate expenditure vis-a-vis revenue on a matching principle should be allowed, since allowing the entire expenditure in one year would give a distorted picture of the profits of a particular year." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the propor…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Paradip Port Road Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2689/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

…he case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the Board’s Circular No 9/2014 dated 23.04.2014 2 wherein it has clarified disputes arisen by referring the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs CIT in 225 ITR 802 wherein it has allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was containing benefit to the company over a period. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return on 28.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs.60,87,73,453/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were is…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/929/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ITA 929/2018+connected Page 1 of 16 $~36, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision: 28th August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD...... Respondent Through WITH ITA 932/2018 & CM No.34867/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER O…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -3 vs. Oriental Pathways ( Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/932/2018HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 260ASection 27Section 271Section 32

…$-36,39,40,41,47,49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 929/2018 & CM No.34866/2018 Date of decision; 28^ August, 2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate ^ versus ~ ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAQPl^ PVT. LTD..:;.^Respondent Through WITH II vi,, - ITA 932/2018 & C^M No.34867/2018 •'".i •• I.V 'rV.:' THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFTNGOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 ' ,1^ \ Appellant Through: 1^. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate S' . ] * f 1, versus , n,-?, ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAOPui)!^ Respondent Through ITA 933/2018 & CM No.34868/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automoative P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(1), Vs M/S Ald Automotive Private Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 13, Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv, M. K. Road, Nariman Point. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aafca0924K

…m – as indicated by the corresponding expenditure, the accounting treatment is in consonance with AS-9. The assessee’s reliance on the decisions in Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), both advocating the matching principle, is apposite. The AO shall cause necessary verification as indicated above, subject to whose findings of fact we allow the assessee’s claim. We may further add that the assessee’s plea is acceptable only qua such expenditure which is subject to, in the normal course of events, an increase with time, i.…

Grp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1727/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1727/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grp Limited बिधम/ Dcit-10(2) 510, ‘A’ Wing, Kohinoor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. City Commercial-1, Kirol Road, Mumbai-400020. Road, L. B. Shashtri Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai-400070. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1890M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Being Aggrieved Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Mumbai, This Appeal Petition Is Being Filed Lo Consider The Following Grounds Of Appeal, Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other

For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…said amount in the year of consideration, therefore, the same is liable to be allowable in view of the law settled in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. ITA. No.1727/M/16 A.Y.2011-12 JCIT (372 ITR 605), Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802 (SC). It is also argued that the advertisement also relates to future year but the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. (292 ITR 399) and DCIT Vs. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. (2011) 11 taxmann.com 444 (Trib.) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT (372 ITR…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…1992) 194 ITR 159 (Kar) c. CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad) d. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add!. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) e. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) f. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2.13. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Simandhar Association vs Principal CIT (I.T.A. No. 789/Mum/2016) Order dated 21/03/2016 has discussed the scope of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant portion from the order is reproduc…

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Somany Ceramics Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Spl Ltd.), Kolkata

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

ITA 80/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2004-05

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

…/s. 143(3) of the Act. He opined that that on the principle of consistency his claim is to be allowed. In support of the contention, the assessee relied on the followings:- Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) Madras Industrial Investment Corprn Vs. CIT 225 ITR 802(Mad) 6. Considering the above, the CIT-A deleted the impugned addition as made by the AO by stating as under:- “4. The second ground relates to disallowance of Rs.71,71,319/ being 1/5th of deferred revenue expenses, claimed in the computation of returned income. Note 8 of the schedule 18 of ‘notes on accounts’ had mentioned that intangible ass…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…er & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad) d. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add!. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) 46 Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. e. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) f. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 3.3. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Simandhar Association vs Principal CIT (I.T.A. No. 789/Mum/2016) Order dated 21/03/2016 has discussed the scope of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant portion from the order is reproduce…

Acg Pampac Machines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 7765/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7765/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Acg Pampac Machines Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम/ 1001, Dalamal House, 10Th Floor Central Circle-42 Nariman Point Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacp-4134-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Manish Shah, Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Manish Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…essment order, the grounds of appeal and the written submissions filed by the appellant. 10.1 The appellant’s reliance placed on the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs CIT [124 ITR 69] and Madras Industrial Corporation. Ltd. Vs CIT[225 ITR 802] are not directly on the issue of non-compete fee. The appellant had cited some of the decisions which are in its favour. However, there are also contrary decisions available on the matter. The Delhi High Court vide its recent judgment in the case of Sharp Business System vs CIT 133 ITD 275 dated 05.11.2012 held that non- compete fees are neither…

Viki Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 852/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacv2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 20.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, Is Wrong, Illegal & Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40A(3)

…re in this year itself, even though it had written off this expenditure in the books over a period of five years. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 802 , wherein, it was held as under: “…Section 37(1) further requires that the expenditure should not be of a capital nature. The question whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and by the application of principles of commer…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv

Section 14A

…count on commercial paper should be allowed in full in the year in which they are incurred. However, the learned Assessing Officer, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation vs. CIT, reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC) held that the concept of deferred revenue expenditure has been given a legal sanctity. Thus, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, he disallowed the claim of entire expenditure made in this year. 4. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Inves…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv

Section 14A

Ra Chem Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 65/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy

Section 143(3)

…istent treatment should be adopted by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed on Radha Soami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 ( SC) (e) The deferred revenue expenditure was held allowable in the following cases. Madras Industrial Investment Corp. ( 1997) 225 ITR 802 ( SC) Taparia Tools (2015) 327 ITR 605 CIT Vs Sanco Trans Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 51 ( Madras) 14. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, directed the AO to allow the deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 33,85,779/- by observing as under: 6. The information on record is carefully considered. The appellant incurred the expenses…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Ra Chem Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 49/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Ra Chem Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 48/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy

Section 143(3)

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8614/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Appellant: Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Jayant Kumar &

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner of (formerly known as Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AADCS8104P Assessee by : Percy J. Pardiwala & Nitesh Josi, ARs’ Revenue by : Jayant Kumar & V. Jenardhanan, DR’s Date of hearing: 12-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 08-06-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Dispute Resolution Pane…