Mobile Communication (India) (P)Ltd. v. DCIT

125 ITD 309Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#16583 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Mobile Communication (India) (P)Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Satia Industries Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Malour Road, Vill. Rupana, Assessment Centre, Distt. Muktsar. Assessment Unit, I.T. [PAN:-AACCS7233A] Department New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. P.N. Arora & Ashwani Juneja, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Girish Bali, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal o…

K.S. Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4998/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyks Commodities Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 719, Indira Prakash Building, Circle-14(2), 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabck2584P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 37

…ined from the broker. Merely because the commission agent is engaged in any other activity, it could not be said that the agent had not rendered any services to the assessee company. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in 125 ITD 309. He further stated that the allegation of the learned assessing officer is without any basis that no proof of service actually has been rendered by the recipient of the brokerage, he submitted that service provided is duly supported by the confirmation notes exchanged between the parties and invoices raised by the broker. The payment was made aft…

ITO, Dehradun vs. M/S. Rudra Woodpack Pvt. Ltd., Uttrakhand

Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is therefore, dismissed

ITA 71/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. K.N.Chary & Sh. O.P. Meenaita No.71/Del./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

…and item 122 in schedule IInd B which shows wooden crates to be distinct product in view of the foregoing submission. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Mobile Communication (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, [2010], 125 ITD 309 (Delhi Trib.) and quoted from the said decision from para 9 page 10 that it is a well settled legal position as laid down by the Court of appeal in England in Moouat vs. Betts Motors Ltd. 1958 (3) All ER 402, that two Departments of the Government cannot in law adopt contrary or inconsistent stands or raise inconsistent contentions or act at a cr…

ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raviraj Investment Corporate (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2786/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण “ ई” "यायपीठ अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई म"। मुंबई म"। म"। म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पवन"सह "याियक सद"य Before Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Shri Pawan Singh,J.M. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2786/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ITO-14(3)(1) M/s. Raviraj Investments Corporate Room No.430A, 4th Floor, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd.,D-1, Asha Kunj CHS Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 Ground Floor, Plot No.82, Vs. Next to Vaishali Hotel…

M/S Dhoot Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 592/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Sarbari Mukherjee, JCIT,Sr>DR

…ase of CIT vs Mandeep Singh 328 ITR 169 has taken a view that commission paid and allowed in an earlier year cannot be disallowed in the subsequent year when the facts and circumstances are identical. In the case of Mobile Communication (India) (P)Ltd vs DCIT 125 ITD 309 the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench has also taken the same view. We are of the view that with the evidence on record the assessee ahs established that the commission paid to SFPL was for the purpose of services rendered by SFPL and therefore the same has to be allowed as deduction as the same is for the purpose of business of the assessee. We, therefor…