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 374Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#462 most cited

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.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT · CIT(A) powers · Section 263 · revisional power · scope of appeal · usurpation of power · Assessing Officer's case · ITAT Special Bench · Section 250 · Commissioner (Appeals)

Also reported as

313 ITR 263122 ITD 216122 TTJ 577117 Taxmann.com 578

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(3)Section 139(1)Section 1961 Section 250 Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 163 section 115ja fees for included services section 120 section 192 tax treaty section 9(1)(vii)section 156

Judgments citing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S Balaji Developers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 96

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.375/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Balaji Developers, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, F-25, Garud Maidan Complex, Dhule Opp. Kamlabai High school, Sakri Road, Dhule-424001 Maharashtra PAN : AAKFB8360N Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of…

Classic Mall Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5320/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR &

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)

…urt is not binding on Courts or the Tribunals which are outside its jurisdiction. This decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay has been followed by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mum). The relevant extracts from the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench, dealing in both the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay (supra) are reproduced as under: 17 Classic Mall Development Company Limited, AY 2016-17 “From this discussion it follows that there is no unison in the opinion of the Hon'ble High Courts or the di…

Sridhar Reddy Bayapu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 841/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…nable to consider the same. We, say so, for the reason that the aforesaid contention of the learned DR does not emanate from the orders of the lower authorities. As observed by the ITAT, Special Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum) the learned DR has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the AO. It was further observed that the scope of argument of the departmental representative should be confined to supporting or defending the impugned order and he cannot be permitted to set up an altogether different case. 21. Also, we may herein observe, that the lear…

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

…d, it is evident that aforesaid submissions made by the learned DR were not the basis for disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- “In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by Assessment Years: 2006-2007 the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Gausia Cold Storage Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldcit, Vs. Gausia Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Room No.104, First 304, Gurukrupa, 133, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Kazi Sayed Street, Sanjay Place, Agra Maharashtra-400003 /""""""""./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg1215G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca

For Appellant: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…fact wrongly mentioned the relevant provision u/s 68 since it was clear cut instance of addition to be made u/s 56(2) in the foregoing terms. 6. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions in light of Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. DCIT (200() 30 SOT 379 (Mum.) (SB that it is not open for the department to make out a new case in second appellate proceeding u/s254(1) of the Act. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee had duly filed his valuation report before the Assessing Officer on 15.11.2016 which has been seriously disputed at the Revenue’s behest. Be that as it may, we are of t…

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69B

…(v) CIT Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Learned. (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) An appellant before the Tribunal can raise any new or additional point for the first time in appeal before the Tribunal. (vi) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Dy. CIT (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (Mub)(SB) Appeal (Tribunal)-Additional ground-Question of limitation-Special Bench having been constituted for deciding the question of limitation on the request of Revenue, the objection as to raising of additional ground by assessee is not maintainable now Further, there can be no embargo on any party to raise a legal ground for the first time…

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3052/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3052/Del/2007 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Modi Entertainment Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 49, Community Centre, New Friends Ward-5(2), Colony, New Delhi- New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm8283G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi Dated 24.03.2007 In Case No. 143/06-07, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 73

…reiterate here that there is no such addition made by both the learned lower authorities. 8 Modi Entertainment Ltd. Learned counsel at this stage also quotes (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC) Mcorp Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 313 ITR 263 (Bom.) that the relevant assessment findings could not be revisited so as to add a new head upon in section 254 proceedings before the tribunal. We find merit in the assessee’s instant technical objection; and, more particularly, in light of the fact that the learned lower authorities have neither specified any actual non-compete fee paid by M/s…

Mma Offshore Asia Vessel Operations Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2567/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Punit Lohiya, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 195Section 263

…without the aid or assistance of the service provider. The aforesaid view is supported/ taken by the following Courts/ Tribunals: Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Raymonds Ltd vs DCIT (86 ITD 791) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT (30 SOT 374) (SB) Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs De Beers India Minerals Pvt Ltd (364 ITR 467) Kolkatta Tribunal CESC Ltd Vs. DCIT 87 ITD 653 (Kol)(TM) KPMG vs JCIT 142 ITD 323 (Mum) DCIT vs Xansa India Ltd (ITA No.2283/Del/2011 & Ors Linklaters LLP vs DCIT (ITA No. 1690/Mum/2015) Therefore, your goodself would appreciate that the services provide…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genpact India Now Merged With Genpact India Pvt. Ltd.), Haryana

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6773/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Genpact India (now merged DCIT, Circle-10(1), with Genpact India Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi Genpact Tower, DLF City, Phase-5, Sector-53, Gurgaon PAN :AAACG9163H (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Genpact Tower, DLF City, Circle-10(1), Phase-5, Sector-53, New Delhi Gurgaon PAN :AAACG9163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Sh. Soumya Singh, Advocate Department b…

Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

Shakuntla Devi, Tijara vs. Income Tax Officer, Riico Industrial Area, Bhiwadi

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 864/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69B

…(iii) Shrawan Beniwal vs ITO, Bikaner (ITA No.292/JU/2008 dated 14-01-2000) (iv) Jora Singh vs ITO (2010) 42 DTR 409 (Lucknow) (v) CIT vs Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker.) (vi) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (Mub)(SB) (vii) Sunil Kumar Pugalia (HUF) vs ITO (2009) 120 TTJ 1001 (Jodh) 3.2 This application for raising additional ground needs to be allowed on the ground that it is pure legal in question and no further documents are required for adjudicating the same and moreover goes to the roots of the case therefore this application need to be allowed.…

Decent Industries P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Decent Industries ITO-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5th floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ DB City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAECA6271G Assessee by Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue by Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved…

Charies River Laboratories Montreal, Ulc, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(2)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 2324/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Charles River Laboratories Vs Acit, Montreal, Ulc, Circle-1(2)(1), 22022 Transcanadienenne, International Taxation, Quebec, Senneville, New Delhi. Canada-H9X3R3, Canada. Pan: Aagcc4061J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chavali S. Narayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Chavali S. Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…r, the services are being "Made available" to the client by the assessee in accordance with the 8 Article 12(4) of the India-Canada DTAA. The AO relied following decisions, to support aforesaid conclusions:- (i) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v DCIT (Mumbai) (SB) 313 ITR 263 (AT); (ii) The Chennai bench decision dated 05.02.2016 (Foster Wheeler France SA-ITAT, Chennai [TS-62-ITAT-2016(CHNY)] (iii) US Technology Resources Private Limited vs. ACIT(TS-511- ITAT-2013) 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assistan…

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. Once the AO has not invoked the relevant provisions of the Act in the assessment order the Ld.CIT(DR) cannot improve the Assessment Order at this stage. The Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra vs DCIT[2010] 122 ITD 216 held as under : “In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned order. He cannot set…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4251/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…es incurred was never the case of the ld. AO. Hence the ld. CIT DR cannot make out a fresh case before this Tribunal. This matter is very well settled by the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 122 ITD 216 (Mum.)(SB), wherein it was categorically held that ld. DR while arguing the case before Tribunal can only support the order of ld. AO and cannot make out a new case by pointing out flaws, if any, in the order of ld. AO. Hence, the argument advanced by the ld. CIT(DR) on the aspect of applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act st…

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 317. 3Rd Floor, Rectangle Circle-10(2), One, D-4, Saket District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaecg5244P Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Mr. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…and not even the case of the lower authorities and that the ld. CIT DR is trying to make out a new case before this Tribunal as he was completely ignorant of the fact that the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd reported in 30 SOT 374 (Mum)(SB) had already held this aspect against the revenue. Even on merits, the argument of the ld. DR is factually incorrect in as much as Note No. 38 to the financial statements of GAPAIL as on 31.3.2012 clearly specifies that GAPAIL vide an Extra-ordinary General Meeting (EGM) in March 2012 assigned rights to Board of Directors to transfer and…

ITO-26-(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sharada Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1417/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey&F Shri Amarjit Singhito-26(2)(1), Vs. M/S Sharada Enterprises, Room No. 127, 1 St Floor, 84-A, Mittal Court, 224, G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aamts9429H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(23)Section 5

…o placed reliance on the various judicial pronouncements: “i. Keshav & Company Vs. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 798 (Mum) (ITAT) P a g e | 10 ITA No.1417/Mum/2023 & C.O 66/Mum/2023 ITO-26(2)(1) Vs. M/s Sharada Enterprises ii. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 30 SOT 374 (Mum) (SB) iii. ACIT Vs. Prakash L. Shah (2008) 118 TTJ 577 (Mumbai)(SB)” 7. The ld. Counsel further submitted that revenue’s ground of appeal challenging eligibility of assessee in claiming exemption u/s 10(2A) untenable as the same do not arise out of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel further made the followin…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3553/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation of ACIT, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. PAN NO. AAACN 3154 F Appellant Respondent M/s Nuclear Power Corporation o…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 2452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2005-06