Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. DCIT

261 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2003#8943 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2024.

Judgments citing Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. DCIT

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…al identity of it’s own, i.e., independent and apart from the partners constituting it for the time being, being only a compendious name and manner of referring to them together (N. Khadervali Saheb & Anr. (Decd. by LRs.) v.N. Gudu Sahib (Decd.) & Ors. [2003] 261 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. [1953] 24 ITR 405 (SC)). Could, as posed by the Bench during hearing, any of it’s partners take a stand in the hearing of 6 Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan (Decd.) v. Dy. CIT the firm that he has not been heard in the matter, and that there has thus been violation of the principles of natural justice? To no answer…

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 159/CHNY/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.159/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Acit Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1(1), बनाम/ New No.165, Old No.110, Chennai. Vs. Menon Eternity Building, 6Th Floor, St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-3312-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit) -Ld. Dr Date Of Final Hearing : 01-11-2023 : 06-11-2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115J

…item as on 31.03.2009 is not allowable in the normal computation. 9.6.8 In so far as applying the decision of Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor (312 ITR 254), and decisions in the cases of CIT vs Echjay Forgings P Ltd (251 ITR 15) and ONGC Vs DCIT (261 ITR 1), the decisions have been on account of restatement of liabilities relating to trading/revenue account which is present and existing as part of balance sheet items. In the instant case, it is not so. 9.6.9 The assessee also quoted Mumbai Special Bench ITAT decision in the case of Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait [5 ITR(T)\3O1] (in which Woodward Governor…

RAVI GOENKA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5132/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ravi Goenka, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 15, Shirin Chambers, 348/50, Vs. Circle 17(3), Samuel Street, Vadgadi, Room No. 137, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 003. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacpg 9107 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shekhar Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Andhale, DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e firm is not an independent entity but only a compendious name given to partnership for convenience. Partners are real owners of the assets of the firm. (Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Khandervali Saheb and Another vs. Guddu Sahib (Decd.) and Others 261 ITR 1) (Copy enclosed) Borrowing by the assessee has been made on behalf of the firm and the borrowed funds were transferred to the firm. Assesse's reply has been carefully considered. Without prejudice to the discussion in para 4.1.1, even if we assume that the assesse has earned interest @12%, he has invested the interest bearing fund @14% in the firm.…

SHRI CHANDRA N. JETHWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1129/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1129/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Chandra N. Jethwani, Income Tax Officer, Matruchhaya, Vs. Ward-2(2)(1), Nivas, Jain Nagar, Ahmedabad. Kabir Chawk, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abcpj7113L

…question of claiming the expenses against the income received from the firm does not arise. Asstt. Year 2013-14 7 6.5 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. khadevali Saheb V. N. guddu sahib reported in 261 ITR 1 wherein it was held as under: A partnership firm is not an independent legal entity, the partners are the real owners of the assets of the partnership firm. Actually the firm name is only a compendious name given to the partnership for the sake of convenience. The assets of the partnership belong to and are owned by the partners of the firm. So lon…

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

…ons in the case of Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 117 ITR 452 (Cal); CIT vs. Oil India Ltd. 143 ITR 848 (Cal); and CIT vs. Martin and Harris P. Ltd. 154 ITR 460 (Cal)] • The Delhi ITA T in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT [2003] 261 ITR 1 (Delhi ITAT - SB) held as follows: " ... the assessee's claim for loss arising as a result of fluctuation in foreign exchange rates on the closing day of the year has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer inter alia, on the ground that this liability was a contingent liability and the loss was a notional one. The main ingredient of a contingent…

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. HEALTH PRIME SERVICES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Dcit, Range 8(2), R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Health Prime Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 303, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093 Pan: Aabch 3697Q .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohhamed RizwanFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 37(1)Section 43A

…rily on the ground that it was a contingent liability and notional in nature. The aforesaid stand of the Assessing Officer is clearly in contrast to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT , 261 ITR 1,(SB)(Del). Moreover, the CIT(A) has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Woodward Governor India Ltd.,(supra) to say that loss arising on reinstatement of foreign currency loss utilized for the purposes of business could not be construed as contingent or notional in nature. It is also not disputed in the present ca…

ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 290/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…ll (India) Ltd”, 117 ITR 789 (Cal.) 15. “Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT”, 117 ITR 452 (Cal. 16. “CIT vs. Oil India Ltd.” 143 ITR 848 (Cal.) 17. “CIT vs. Martin and Harris P. Ltd.” 154 ITR 460 (Cal.) 18. “Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (2003) 261 ITR 1 (SB) (Delhi ITAT) 19. “DCIT VS. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.”. 114 ITD 446 [ affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported at 312 ITR 254 (SC)] 20. “Sumit Diamond India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.7148/Mum/2012). 21. “M/s. Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT”, ITA No.722/Del/2014 22. “Westfalia Separator India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT”, ITA Nos.4446/D…

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7415/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…ll (India) Ltd”, 117 ITR 789 (Cal.) 15. “Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT”, 117 ITR 452 (Cal. 16. “CIT vs. Oil India Ltd.” 143 ITR 848 (Cal.) 17. “CIT vs. Martin and Harris P. Ltd.” 154 ITR 460 (Cal.) 18. “Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (2003) 261 ITR 1 (SB) (Delhi ITAT) 19. “DCIT VS. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.”. 114 ITD 446 [ affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported at 312 ITR 254 (SC)] 20. “Sumit Diamond India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.7148/Mum/2012). 21. “M/s. Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT”, ITA No.722/Del/2014 22. “Westfalia Separator India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT”, ITA Nos.4446/D…

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 668/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…ll (India) Ltd”, 117 ITR 789 (Cal.) 15. “Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT”, 117 ITR 452 (Cal. 16. “CIT vs. Oil India Ltd.” 143 ITR 848 (Cal.) 17. “CIT vs. Martin and Harris P. Ltd.” 154 ITR 460 (Cal.) 18. “Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (2003) 261 ITR 1 (SB) (Delhi ITAT) 19. “DCIT VS. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.”. 114 ITD 446 [ affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported at 312 ITR 254 (SC)] 20. “Sumit Diamond India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.7148/Mum/2012). 21. “M/s. Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT”, ITA No.722/Del/2014 22. “Westfalia Separator India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT”, ITA Nos.4446/D…

ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jainand Sh. N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: S/Sh. Ajay Vohra. Sr.Advocate & N.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Sh. N.K.Chand, CIT(DR) & Jitendra Yadav

…ll (India) Ltd”, 117 ITR 789 (Cal.) 15. “Khandelwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT”, 117 ITR 452 (Cal. 16. “CIT vs. Oil India Ltd.” 143 ITR 848 (Cal.) 17. “CIT vs. Martin and Harris P. Ltd.” 154 ITR 460 (Cal.) 18. “Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT”, (2003) 261 ITR 1 (SB) (Delhi ITAT) 19. “DCIT VS. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.”. 114 ITD 446 [ affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported at 312 ITR 254 (SC)] 20. “Sumit Diamond India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.7148/Mum/2012). 21. “M/s. Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT”, ITA No.722/Del/2014 22. “Westfalia Separator India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT”, ITA Nos.4446/D…

INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SERVICES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

…which are neither speculative nor contingent loss. The assessee company relied upon the following judgments : 1. Shree Capital Services V. ACIT 318 ITR 1 2. CIT V. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 254 3. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V. DCIT 261 ITR 1 4. DCIT V Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait 132 TTJ 505 The assessing officer held that these are speculative transactions and loss arising is in the nature of speculative loss. The assessing officer held that the turnover of the assessee company is only Rs. 5.83 crores for the assessment year and the receivables are Rs. 2.23 crores as at the end of the a…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. CLIMATE SYSTEM PVT.LTD

ITA/471/2014HC Delhi22 Aug 2014
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 471/2014 . . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI . ..... Appellant . Through: Mr.Rohit Madan, Standing Counsel . . . versus . . . CLIMATE SYSTEM PVT.LTD. . ..... Respondent . Through: . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO . O R D E R . 22.08.2014 . . . This appeal by the revenue relates to the Assessment Year 2003-04 raises a singular issue, whether Rs. 49,98,072/- debited in the Profit and Loss…

Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. DCIT (261 ITR 1) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax