What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

How many judgments cite Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT?

201 judgments on BharatTax cite Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 9(1)(vii), Section 144C(3), Section 139(1), Section 1961, Section 250.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374)

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6711/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P .... Respondent [ M/S. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan:Aabcr 7656P ... Appellant Vs. The Addl.Cit -7(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/8/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Order Per G.S.Pannu,A.M:

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Sanghavi/ Deepak JainFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…ntended by the learned A.R. that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following judicial pronouncements on which he placed reliance earlier before the learned CIT(A): - i) Raymond Ltd. vs DCIT (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mum) ii) Mahindra & Mahindra (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) iii) Intratck Testing Services India P. Ltd. (307 ITR 418) (AAR) iv) DCIT vs. Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd. (94 ITD 31) (Mum) v) ITO vs. De Beers India Minerals P. Ltd. (297 ITR (AT) 1760 (Bangalore) 13.4 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 847/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ntended by the learned A.R. that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following judicial pronouncements on which he placed reliance earlier before the learned CIT(A): - i) Raymond Ltd. vs DCIT (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mum) ii) Mahindra & Mahindra (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) iii) Intratck Testing Services India P. Ltd. (307 ITR 418) (AAR) iv) DCIT vs. Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd. (94 ITD 31) (Mum) v) ITO vs. De Beers India Minerals P. Ltd. (297 ITR (AT) 1760 (Bangalore) 13.4 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ntended by the learned A.R. that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following judicial pronouncements on which he placed reliance earlier before the learned CIT(A): - i) Raymond Ltd. vs DCIT (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mum) ii) Mahindra & Mahindra (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) iii) Intratck Testing Services India P. Ltd. (307 ITR 418) (AAR) iv) DCIT vs. Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd. (94 ITD 31) (Mum) v) ITO vs. De Beers India Minerals P. Ltd. (297 ITR (AT) 1760 (Bangalore) 13.4 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the…

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4269/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan

Section 14A

…for technical service or royalty, there is no need for deduction of tax at source as business profit is not taxable under the DTAA in the absence of P.E. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decision:– i) Mahindra & Mahindra v/s DCIT, 30 SOT 374 (Mum.) (SB); ii) DIT v/s Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., 20 Taxmann.com 807) (Del.); and iii) CIT v/s De Beers (I) Minerals P. Ltd., 21 Taxmann.com 214 (Kar.). 32. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it was contended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was brought into the statute by Finance Act 2003, therefore, as per Article–24 of…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4076/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3596/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3594/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3593/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Foster Wheeler France S.A., Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 641/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Foster Wheeler France S.A., The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, V. International Taxation -1, Chennai 6Th & 7Th Floor, “A” Block, Tidel Park, Chennai - 600 034. No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113. Pan : Aabcf 3849 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…p services. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in Ernst & Young (P) Ltd. [2010-TIOL- 18-ARA-IT] and also on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (313 ITR 263). The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on various other decisions and submitted that when technical knowledge is transferred through technical service, then alone the payment is considered as fee for technical services and liable for taxation in India. When the assessee was not made available any technical knowledge or expertise of F…

Foster Wheeler France S.A., Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 774/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Foster Wheeler France S.A., The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, V. International Taxation -1, Chennai 6Th & 7Th Floor, “A” Block, Tidel Park, Chennai - 600 034. No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113. Pan : Aabcf 3849 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…p services. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in Ernst & Young (P) Ltd. [2010-TIOL- 18-ARA-IT] and also on the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (313 ITR 263). The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on various other decisions and submitted that when technical knowledge is transferred through technical service, then alone the payment is considered as fee for technical services and liable for taxation in India. When the assessee was not made available any technical knowledge or expertise of F…

Prime Focus Ltd.., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (Ods) C. RG. 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8364/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.8364/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) C.O.233/M/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.8066/M/2011) (Ay 2008-09) Prime Focus Limited, फनाभ/ Dcit (Osd-1), 1S T Floor, Old Dubbing & Central Range, Aayakar Vs. Recording Studio Building, Bhavan, Marine Lines, Dadasaheb Phalke Chitra Mumbai – 400 020. Nagari,Filmcity Campus, Opposite Hotel Food Paradise, Filmcity, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 065. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp6811B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar, DR

Section 14ASection 234D

…capital or revenue and the Ld DR‟s attempt to rope in the provisions of section 35D of the Act constitutes creating a new case / issue by the Ld DR, which is not permissible as per the ratio laid down by the Special Bench in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (122 TTJ 577), dated 9.4.2009 and also the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Prakash L. Shah (115 ITD 167) dated 22nd August, 2008. In addition, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on various other decisions to demonstrate that similar kind of expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The decisions in the case of Ashima synta…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…nical or consultancy services and the agreement was for providing non-technical services . The CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Armayesh Global 51 SOT 564(Mum.) and Mumbai Special Bench decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (2009) 122 TTJ 577(Mum-SB.) whereby it was held that where for procuring export orders , the taxpayer was using services of & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 overseas commission agent, it was only acting as an agent on commission basis and has not provided any managerial/technical services. The CIT(A) held that these commission agents were not having permanent establishment i…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…nical or consultancy services and the agreement was for providing non-technical services . The CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Armayesh Global 51 SOT 564(Mum.) and Mumbai Special Bench decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (2009) 122 TTJ 577(Mum-SB.) whereby it was held that where for procuring export orders , the taxpayer was using services of & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 overseas commission agent, it was only acting as an agent on commission basis and has not provided any managerial/technical services. The CIT(A) held that these commission agents were not having permanent establishment i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5325/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approached the Tribunal with the open heart and clean hands. He cited the decision of Hon'ble…

Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5024/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approached the Tribunal with the open heart and clean hands. He cited the decision of Hon'ble…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3170/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approached the Tribunal with the open heart and clean hands. He cited the decision of Hon'ble…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3167/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approached the Tribunal with the open heart and clean hands. He cited the decision of Hon'ble…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3162/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…is a question which can be taken at any point of time before the Bench during the pendency of the litigation in this regard. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- 268 ITR 481 (SC) CIT Vs. Md. Iqbal 221 ITR 481 (MP) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263 All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 16 ITR (Trib.) 380. 5. The Ld. DR opposed the application. He submitted that additional ground does not disclose as to on which specific date the order was passed, which goes to indicate that the assessee has not approached the Tribunal with the open heart and clean hands. He cited the decision of Hon'ble…

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

Foster Wheeler France S.A., Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Foster Wheeler France S.A., Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Prime Focus Ltd.., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (Ods) C. RG. 7, Mumbai

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi

Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi