Mohanlal M. Shah v. DCIT

105 ITD 669Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#18626 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

Issues it is cited on

domestic companysection 115section 11transfersection 143companysection 14section 143(3)indiabusiness

Judgments citing Mohanlal M. Shah v. DCIT

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Barindra Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2606/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Harish Krishnakant Bhatt (supra) does not help the Revenue in the present case. The third decision relied upon by the Ld. DR was in the case of Mohanlal M. Shah. Vs. DCIT [105 ITD 669(Mum)] which is also inapplicable in the present situation in as much as the same is merely a reiteration of the decision of Ahmadabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Harish Krishnakant Bhatt (supra), which we have found to be inapplicable in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Moh…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Barindra Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2605/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Harish Krishnakant Bhatt (supra) does not help the Revenue in the present case. The third decision relied upon by the Ld. DR was in the case of Mohanlal M. Shah. Vs. DCIT [105 ITD 669(Mum)] which is also inapplicable in the present situation in as much as the same is merely a reiteration of the decision of Ahmadabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Harish Krishnakant Bhatt (supra), which we have found to be inapplicable in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Moh…

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 301/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.301/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Plot No.21 Bidadi Industrial Area, Circle –2, Ltu, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-562 109. Pan : Aabct 5590 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

…ivocally held that DDT is a tax on the company and not on the shareholder. A similar position has been consistently upheld by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Sunash Investment Co v. Asstt. CIT[2007] 14 SOT 80 (Mum. -Trib.), Mohananlal M. Shah v. thy. CIT[2007] 105 ITD 669 (Mum) and Asstt. CIT v. Dakshesh S. Shah [2004] 90 I TD 519 (Mum).A similar argument on applicability of tax treaty to DDT was considered and rejected by the South African High Court in the case of Volkswagen of South Africa (Pty) Ltd. CIT South African Revenue Service [Case No.24201/2007" dated 25-4-2008]. The issue before the High Court was whe…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Newdeal Finance & Investment Limited, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1558/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ITD 44 (Kol) 3) Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 227 (Cal) 4) CIT, Thiruvananthapuram v. State Bank of Travancore (2011) 16 taxmann.com 289 (Ker) 5) Mohan T. Advani Finance (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2006) 9 SOT 675 (Mum) 6) Mohanlal M. Shah v. DCTI, (2007) 105 ITD 669 (Mum) Pradeep Kar v. ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 416 (Kar) ITO v. Sanatan Textrade Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 593 (Mum) 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the order Ld. CIT(A). the ld. AR further submitted that from the reading of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that no deduction is disallowable in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee fo…

Mohanlal M. Shah v. DCIT (105 ITD 669) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax