Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT

13 ITR 221Reported decision1945#10376 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT

TCS-E-SERVE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS E-SEREVE INTERNAIONTAL LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed since the only issue in revenue’s appeal is deduction u/s 10A

ITA 5089/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5089/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5090/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Tata Consultancy Services Limited Dcit- 9(1) / 9(3) (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve Ltd Aaykar Bhawan बिाम With Tata Consultancy Services Ltd) M.K.Road / Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-4480-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4928/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4929/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5478/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7446/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7447/Mum/2010 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Acit, Range-9(3) / Circle-9(3) Tata Consultancy Services Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve Ltd बिाम Mumbai-400 020 With Tata Consultancy Services Ltd) / Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-4480-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla-Ld. Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR & Shri
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…d is as existing on the 1st day of April of the previous year. In support the Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 , Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 221 (PC) and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd, f 1961142 ITR 589 (SO. The aforesaid decisions are not relevant for our purpose particularly, in view of the fact that Explanation 2 to section 234D of the Act as introduced by the Finance Act,2012 being declaratory in nature would be retrospective. This amendment make it cleat that it shall apply…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3379/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra-CIT DR and Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…d is as existing on the 1st day of April of the previous year. In support the Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 , Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 221 (PC) and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd, f 1961142 ITR 589 (SO. The aforesaid decisions are not relevant for our purpose particularly, in view of the fact that Explanation 2 to section 234D of the Act as introduced by the Finance Act,2012 being declaratory in nature would be retrospective. This amendment make it cleat that it shall apply…

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…secutive ten years exemption out of the period of 15 years. 32.1 It is settled law that the law to be applied is that enforce in the relevant assessment year. For this proposition reliance is placed on the following decisions: Maharajah of Pithapuram vs. CIT (13 ITR 221) (PC); Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala (60 ITR 262) (SC) Reliance vs. CIT (120 ITR 921) (SC) Goslino Mario vs. CIT (241 ITR 314) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajai Tempo’s case (196 ITR 188) held that the provision granting deduction, exemption or relief should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. The above t…