National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT

98 ITD 278Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#18462 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box India (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) , United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) , CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi), National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v JCIT: 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT), Ld. AR argued that that liability which has arisen in the relevant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date. In respect of the vendor-wise and item-wise details of total provision of Rs.32,11,63,153 made during the relevant year in the paper book, it is…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an g) expenditure is deductible the following have to be taken into account (i) whether the system of accounting followed by the assessee is mercantile system, whic…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Mumbai vs. C.I.T. L.T.P. Unit, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2458/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri . B. Prusheth, CIT (DR)

Section 263

…rn Coalfields Ltd. vs ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 659; IBP Co. Ltd. vs ACIT (2003) 129 Taxman 26 (Kolkata) (MAG); TATA Communications Ltd. vs. ACIT (2013) 151 TTJ (Mum - Trib); GAIL India Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi – Trib), NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 98 ITD 278 (Hyd), Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Chennai) 685; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. The learned DR supported the order passed by the CIT. Reliance was placed by him in M/s. Crompton Greaves vs. CIT (ITA No. 1994/Mum/2013 & ITA No. 2836/Mum/2014). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) e) Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC). f) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 g) CIT v. Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd. : 278 ITR 337 (Del.) h) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) 26.3.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible the following have to be taken into account (i) whether the system of accounting followed by the assessee is mercantile system, w…