Mumbai Fairfield Atlas Ltd. v. ACIT (Para-9) 3

26 SOT 64Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#17430 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Mumbai Fairfield Atlas Ltd. v. ACIT (Para-9) 3

Shri. Vijaykumar Thimmegowda, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2928/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

…such rights in such geographical areas where the appellant has himself exhibited the film in theatres.” 6. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Vieshesh Films (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 64 (Mum) and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Laxmi Video Theatres and others Vs. State of Haryana and Others (1993) 3 SCC 715. The Ld CIT(A), however, held that these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case. The observations made by Ld CIT(A) are extracted below:- “4.6 In addition to above, the Ru…

DCIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…umbai 3 Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Vs ACIT (Para 35) 43 taxmann.com ITAT Mumbai 255 4 KSS Ltd. (2016) vs DOT (para 6.2) 66 taxmann.com 97 ITAT Mumbai 5 Fairfield Atlas Ltd. Vs. ACIT (para 9) 3 taxmann.com 760 ITAT Mumbai 6 Vieshesh Films (P) Ltd vs. DOT (par() 7) 26 SOT 64 ITAT Mumbai 7 Intersil India Ltd. Vs. AddL. CIT (para 12-16) 101 ITD 85 ITAT Mumbai 8 Markwell Hose Industries (P) Ltd. 95 ITD 271 ITAT Mumbai 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit for the &allowance of 10% of the hospitality expenses On adhoc basis in the hands of the asses…

DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…57 ITAT-Mumbai Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs ACIT (Para-35) 43 taxmann .com 255 TAT-Mumbai KSS Ltd-92016) vs DOT (Para-6.2) 66 taxmann. com 97 ITAT-Mumbai Fairfield Atlas Ltd. Vs ACIT (Para-9) 3 taxmann. com 760 ITAT-Mumbai Vieshesh Films (P.) Ltd. Vs DOT (Para-7) 26 SOT 64 ITAT-Mumbai ntersil India Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (Para- 2-6) 101ITD85 ITAT-Mumbai vfarkwell Hose Industries (P.) Ltd. vs JCIT 95ITD27I ITAT-Mumbai Para 1 9) 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit for the disallowance of 10% of the hospitality expenses on adhoc basis in the hands of…

Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…57 ITAT-Mumbai Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs ACIT (Para-35) 43 taxmann .com 255 TAT-Mumbai KSS Ltd-92016) vs DOT (Para-6.2) 66 taxmann. com 97 ITAT-Mumbai Fairfield Atlas Ltd. Vs ACIT (Para-9) 3 taxmann. com 760 ITAT-Mumbai Vieshesh Films (P.) Ltd. Vs DOT (Para-7) 26 SOT 64 ITAT-Mumbai ntersil India Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (Para- 2-6) 101ITD85 ITAT-Mumbai vfarkwell Hose Industries (P.) Ltd. vs JCIT 95ITD27I ITAT-Mumbai Para 1 9) 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit for the disallowance of 10% of the hospitality expenses on adhoc basis in the hands of…

Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, MA filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 5812/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5812/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Tiwari

…vs iTO n.com 57 bai (Para-8) 3 Johnson & Johnson 43 ITATMum Ltd vs ACIT (Para- axmann.co bai 35) m 255 4 KSS Ltd-{2016) vs 66 ITATMum DOT (Par-6.2) axmann.co bai m 97 5 Fairfield Atlas Ltd. 3 ITATMum VsACIT (Para-9) taxmann.c bai om 760 6 Vieshesh Films (P.) 26 SOT 64 ITATMum Ltd. Vs DOT (Para- bai 7) 7 Intersil India Ltd. 1011TD85 ITATMum VsAdd.CIT(Para 12- bai 16) 8 Markwell Hose 951TD271 ITAT Industries (P) Ltd Mumbai 7. Respectfully following the propositions laid down in above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit for the disallowance of 10% of the hospitality expenses on adhoc basis in the hand…