Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. ACIT

5 SOT 393Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#7640 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 92CA(3)

Judgments citing Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. ACIT

GIRISH RAGHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6955/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blegirish Raghavan, Acit 26(1), 201-B Eternia, 1, Mumbai Vs. Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai 400 076. Pan : Ahcpr2792R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…not have been made. 13. Insofar as the disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act is concerned, it is submitted that no such ad hoc disallowance could be made for which reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393 (MUM.) 69 Smt. Gurmitkaur Amarjit Singh Bhasin v. ITO (559/Mum/2014] ii. ACIT v. Ganpati Enterprises Ltd. 32 Taxmann.com 262 (Del. Tri.) iii. ITO v. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd 13 TTJ 216 (Jaipur Tri.) iv. Tripat Kaur v. ACIT (3244/Del/2012] v. Sunita Mine Chem Ind. v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 39 (JODH.)(URO) vi. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. v. ACI…

KURZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3806/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blekurz India Private Limited Dcit - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Makhijani, CA (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…cumstances, ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal stands allowed" 3.9 Further reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Intertoll ICS India (P) Ltd. (2016) 71 taxmann.com 353 (Mumbai – Trib.) ii. ACIT vs Arthur Anderson and Co. (2005) 5 SOT 393) (Mumbai ITAT) iii. Sonic Biochem Extractions (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2013) 35 taxmann.com 463 (MumbI – Trib.) iv. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – M/s. Epcot Securities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 395/Mum/2009 (Mumbai ITAT). v. M/s. Pearl Farben Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No. 1122/Mum/2010)” 7. In backdrop of aforesaid submissions, taking support from the…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3114/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 234BSection 37(1)Section 40

…3) dated 28 September 2018 vii. ACIT v. M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells (ITA no.682/AHD/2016) viii. DCIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ahmedabad ITA no. 1983/AHD/2017 for AY 2013-14 and ITA no. 1984/AHD/2017 for AY 2014-15 ix. ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393 x. Commissioner of Income- tax v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 318 (Madras HC) xi. M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. ACIT in ITA Nos.3715/Del/2017 (Assessment year 2011-12) - order dated 15 January 2021 xii. M/s C.C. Chokshi & Co in ITA no.209 and 193 of 2008 and A. F. Ferguson & Co. in ITA no. 87 of 2011(Bom. HC) xiii. in ITA No. 2077…

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2642/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 234BSection 37(1)Section 40

…3) dated 28 September 2018 vii. ACIT v. M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells (ITA no.682/AHD/2016) viii. DCIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ahmedabad ITA no. 1983/AHD/2017 for AY 2013-14 and ITA no. 1984/AHD/2017 for AY 2014-15 ix. ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393 x. Commissioner of Income- tax v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 318 (Madras HC) xi. M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. ACIT in ITA Nos.3715/Del/2017 (Assessment year 2011-12) - order dated 15 January 2021 xii. M/s C.C. Chokshi & Co in ITA no.209 and 193 of 2008 and A. F. Ferguson & Co. in ITA no. 87 of 2011(Bom. HC) xiii. in ITA No. 2077…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal filed for Revenue for AY 2013-14 stands dismissed, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by the assessee are al...

ITA 5123/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Setha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

….2018; 4 ITA No.5123/Del./2019 ITA No.4617/Del./2019 ITA No.7236/Del./2018 (iv) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in ACIT vs. M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells in ITA No.682/Ahd/2016 for AY 2010-11 dated 28.06.2018; (v) ITAT, Mumbai in ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393; and (vi) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in DCIT vs. M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells in ITA No.1983/Kol/2017 for AY 2013-14 & ITA No.1984/Ahd/2017dated 01.10.2019; 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue could not dispute the proposition. It is also not the case that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has reversed the order of ITAT. Since the ITAT in assessee’s own case co…

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed for Revenue for AY 2013-14 stands dismissed, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by the assessee are al...

ITA 4617/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Setha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

….2018; 4 ITA No.5123/Del./2019 ITA No.4617/Del./2019 ITA No.7236/Del./2018 (iv) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in ACIT vs. M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells in ITA No.682/Ahd/2016 for AY 2010-11 dated 28.06.2018; (v) ITAT, Mumbai in ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393; and (vi) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in DCIT vs. M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells in ITA No.1983/Kol/2017 for AY 2013-14 & ITA No.1984/Ahd/2017dated 01.10.2019; 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue could not dispute the proposition. It is also not the case that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has reversed the order of ITAT. Since the ITAT in assessee’s own case co…

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed for Revenue for AY 2013-14 stands dismissed, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by the assessee are al...

ITA 7236/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Setha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

….2018; 4 ITA No.5123/Del./2019 ITA No.4617/Del./2019 ITA No.7236/Del./2018 (iv) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in ACIT vs. M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells in ITA No.682/Ahd/2016 for AY 2010-11 dated 28.06.2018; (v) ITAT, Mumbai in ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393; and (vi) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in DCIT vs. M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells in ITA No.1983/Kol/2017 for AY 2013-14 & ITA No.1984/Ahd/2017dated 01.10.2019; 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue could not dispute the proposition. It is also not the case that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has reversed the order of ITAT. Since the ITAT in assessee’s own case co…

SHANTILAL B. PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4262/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…er submission, we have submitted the GP and NP ratio of the preceding years. The, NP ratio of the current year is in line with the preceding year and hence there is no suppression of profits. Further, reliance is placed on ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393 (Mum) that no ad hoc disallowances can be made by the AO. 2.3 Further the appellant has already disallowed donation of Rs. 2,500/- in this computation of income, while filing return of income. We therefore request your goodself to kindly delete the ad hoc addition of Rs. 74,16,051/- and oblige. " I have carefully considered the appellant's submissi…

SHANTILAL B PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4261/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…er submission, we have submitted the GP and NP ratio of the preceding years. The, NP ratio of the current year is in line with the preceding year and hence there is no suppression of profits. Further, reliance is placed on ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. [2006] 5 SOT 393 (Mum) that no ad hoc disallowances can be made by the AO. 2.3 Further the appellant has already disallowed donation of Rs. 2,500/- in this computation of income, while filing return of income. We therefore request your goodself to kindly delete the ad hoc addition of Rs. 74,16,051/- and oblige. " I have carefully considered the appellant's submissi…

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1433/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…s P. Ltd. Page 21 of 33 i) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 295 ITR 45 (SC), ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del Trib.), iii) ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (5 SOT 393)(Mum Trib.) and iv) Sonic Biochem Extractions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 463 (Mum Trib.) (iii) On examination of the material on record, we find that genuineness of the services rendered by M/s.Indelox is not doubted by the AO. The only ground on which the AO has disallowed is that at the time of inspection, very few of the employees of…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…s P. Ltd. Page 21 of 33 i) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 295 ITR 45 (SC), ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del Trib.), iii) ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (5 SOT 393)(Mum Trib.) and iv) Sonic Biochem Extractions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 463 (Mum Trib.) (iii) On examination of the material on record, we find that genuineness of the services rendered by M/s.Indelox is not doubted by the AO. The only ground on which the AO has disallowed is that at the time of inspection, very few of the employees of…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1399/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…s P. Ltd. Page 21 of 33 i) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 295 ITR 45 (SC), ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del Trib.), iii) ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (5 SOT 393)(Mum Trib.) and iv) Sonic Biochem Extractions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 463 (Mum Trib.) (iii) On examination of the material on record, we find that genuineness of the services rendered by M/s.Indelox is not doubted by the AO. The only ground on which the AO has disallowed is that at the time of inspection, very few of the employees of…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 388/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…s P. Ltd. Page 21 of 33 i) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 295 ITR 45 (SC), ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del Trib.), iii) ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (5 SOT 393)(Mum Trib.) and iv) Sonic Biochem Extractions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 463 (Mum Trib.) (iii) On examination of the material on record, we find that genuineness of the services rendered by M/s.Indelox is not doubted by the AO. The only ground on which the AO has disallowed is that at the time of inspection, very few of the employees of…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…s P. Ltd. Page 21 of 33 i) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 295 ITR 45 (SC), ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del Trib.), iii) ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (5 SOT 393)(Mum Trib.) and iv) Sonic Biochem Extractions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 463 (Mum Trib.) (iii) On examination of the material on record, we find that genuineness of the services rendered by M/s.Indelox is not doubted by the AO. The only ground on which the AO has disallowed is that at the time of inspection, very few of the employees of…

M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..CI.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…s P. Ltd. Page 21 of 33 i) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 295 ITR 45 (SC), ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del Trib.), iii) ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (5 SOT 393)(Mum Trib.) and iv) Sonic Biochem Extractions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 463 (Mum Trib.) (iii) On examination of the material on record, we find that genuineness of the services rendered by M/s.Indelox is not doubted by the AO. The only ground on which the AO has disallowed is that at the time of inspection, very few of the employees of…