Monitor India (P) Ltd. v. UOI

66 DTR 473High Court2012#25432 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Monitor India (P) Ltd. v. UOI

ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Sentia Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv./Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…Shriram Foundry Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2012) 250 CTR 116 (Bom.) • Shriram Foundry Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2012) 250 CTR 116 (Bom.) Monitor India(P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) • Monitor India(P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) • HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi)(High Court) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v.ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v.ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.) 5.1.12 As observed above, at the time of original assessment, the as…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…of opinion on the same set of facts. Similar view has also been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raliis India Ltd -vs.- ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom). 3.27] The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCL Corporation Ltd, -vs.- ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Delhi), held that the petitioner having supplied relevant information in its return indicating that it had received dividend income and that it had incurred expenses for the purposes of earning the said dividend income and also filed details by way of a letter, and there being no specific averment or allegation that any particular expense has not…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4266/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…s. Dy. CIT (2010) 328 JTR 534 (Bom) f) ' NIhttent Technologies (P) Ltd v Dy CIT (2011) 59 DTR 281 (Bom) g) Shrlrsm Foundry Ltd v. Dy.CJT(2012) 250 CTR 116 (Bom.) h) ' Monitor India (P) Ltd v. UOI ( 2012) 68 DTR 313 (Bom) i) HCL Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 66 DTR 473 (Ddhi)(High Court) j) Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v.ACJT(2012) 340 ITR 299'(Bom.) k) Weilntertrade (P) Ltd &Anr vs. JTO (2009) 308 ITR 22 7. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, strongly supported order of Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the AO has validly reopened the assessment on the basis of audit objection memo received for earlier years which sugg…