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 367,154 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Chhotaray a/w

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…judicial pronouncements, as under :  DCIT Vs. Padinjarekkara Agencies Ltd. (53 ITD 317) (Cochin)  ACIT Vs. DHL Operations BV (108 TTJ 152)(Mum)  Prakash L. Shah 115 ITD 167 (Mum)(SB) 7 Balaji TrustITA no.5139/Mum./2017  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 122 ITD 216 (Mum)(SB)  CIT Vs. S.A Builders Ltd. (38 taxmann.com 255)(P&H) Apart from that, the assessee had also assailed the additional grounds of appeal qua the merits therein involved. 9. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties qua the issue pertaining to admission of the additional grounds of appeal that have been raised…

ACIT Circle-1, Kalyan vs. Shri. Krishnan Muthukumar, Thane

ITA 7450/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit, Circle-1 Shri Krishnan Muthukumar 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. 31/348, Aksharmahol Chs, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan, Telang Cross Road, West – 421301 Road No.1, Matunga (East) Mumbai -400 019 Pan No. Aakpm0170D (Revenue) (Assessee)

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 64(1)(iv)

…5 ITD 167 (Mum)(SB). Elaborating on the limitation on the powers of the department qua raising of contentions that are found to be contrary to the stand taken by the A.O, the ‗Special bench‘ of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT 122 ITD 216 (Mum)(SB) (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (Mum)(SB), had observed, that the department cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the one taken by the A.O. Also, we find that the Hon‘ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT(Central), Ludhiana Vs. S.A Builders Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 255 (P&H), had held, that the Tribunal cannot allow a pa…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 164, 165 & 166/H/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. NSL Renewable Power Income-tax, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCN 6009L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar Assessee by: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Date of hearing: 23/06/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/09/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: These three appeals filed by the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

M/S Shindengen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. PAN : AARCS 8947 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 30.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 1468/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, Sr.DR-I

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…he same is in the nature of capital expenditure than Revenue and therefore liable to be declined. We find no substance in the Revenue’s latter substantive grievance as well. This tribunal’s Special Bench decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum) holds that the Revenue could not be allowed to improve its case other than those findings recorded in the assessment order. Coupled with this, we fail to understand as to in what manner any of the said items could be held as in falling under the capital head. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant second substantive grievance as well. 6. Thi…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…-07] CIT, International Taxation, Bangalore vs Sonata Information Technology Ltd: 232 CTR 20 (Kar) [Pg. 339 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 189 Taxman 232 (Del) [Pg. 339 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT: 122 TTJ 577 (Mum)(SB) [approved by the Bombay High Court in the case reported as DIT(IT) vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd: 365 ITR 560 (Bom)] [Pg. 352-387 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] It is submitted that GSK Biologicals SA under section 245Q(1) of the Act filed application before the Authority of Advance Rulings to decide, whether it would result in a Permanent…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Smt. Pallavi Mishra, Jaipur

In the result, all the additional grounds of appeal as well as original ground of appeal no

ITA 1065/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (FCA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…ts and ITA No. 1065/JP/2019 & CO No. 23/JP/2019 11 DCIT, Jaipur vs. Smt. Pallavi Mishra, Jaipur material on record. Therefore in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 as well as Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. DCIT 122 TTJ 577 (Mum) (SB), the additional grounds raised is admitted for adjudication. 7.1 Briefly, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is passed in the case of the appellant reportedly giving effect to the order of Settlement Commission which was passed in the case of Indian Medical Trust and not the appellant herself. The appe…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

….A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar 43. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahin Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577/ 30 SOT 374 /[2010] 122 [2009] 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577/ 30 SOT 374 /[2010] 122 ITD ITD 216 (Mum.) has laid down the proposition to the effect that laid down the proposition to the effect that the Departmental Representative has no the Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed b jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)., Hyderabad vs. A.P. Dairy Development Co-Operative Federation Limited., Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1113/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri R. Dipak (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri B. Sai Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n pages 8 to 30 of its paper book. The same nowhere contains any revenue element. Learned CIT DR’s argument that the Assessing Officer ought not to have passed his cryptic order also does not carry any merit as per Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. DCIT (2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum) (SB) that a departmental representative carries no jurisdiction to go beyond the assessment findings. We therefore decline Revenue’s instant identical former substantive grievance in both the appeals. The CIT(A)’s orders under challenge are upheld therefore. 4. Next comes the Revenue’s second substantive ground that the CIT(Appeals) has…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…by pointing out to the purchase bills and the date of payment etc. when the AO and the Pr. CIT have not found fault or raised any suspicion on this issue. He submitted that the special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 313 ITR 263 (AT) (Mumbai) (SB) has held that CIT(D/R) cannot build up a new case for the Revenue, while defending an order. He prayed for relief. 8. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and the case law cited, we hold as follows. 9. The first issue is whether the ld. P…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…er. Under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) the Department is not entitled to argue and appeal against the Assessment Order. In this regard a useful reference can be made to the following: Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. DC1T [(2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum-SB)] [Affirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited [365 ITR 560 (Bombay)]. Department did not challenge on the ruling of the Hon'ble Tribunal as regards the limitation on DR's powers to argue / make out on entirely new case contrary to the assessment order] ACIT v. Ms. Aishwarya K Rai - (2010) 1271T…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl Taxn) Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)

Section 195

…does not prescribe the time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, then reasonable time limit ought to be read into the provisions. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [(2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum.)] had held that order passed u/s 201(1) is akin to an order of assessment and the reasonable time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) would be same as the time limit prescribed for initiating and completion of reassessment u/s 147 of the I.T.Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in…