How many judgments cite Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (161 ITR 365), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 73 of the IT Act.

Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

161 ITR 365Supreme Court of India1986#4578 most cited

What is Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Losses arising from the sale of investments made for business purposes are treated as business losses, not capital losses.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · loss on sale of investment · business loss · capital loss · revenue expenditure · 161 ITR 365 · 27 Taxmann 287 · section 73

Also reported as

27 Taxmann 287

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 73 of the IT Act

Issues it is cited on

transfer of capital asset enduring benefit commercial expediency revenue expenditure section 115 section 11 section 142(1)previous year transfer section 143 company section 143(3)

Judgments citing Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 250

…\nmade because and for the purposes of business, the loss on sale of\nsuch investment is required to be treated as business loss. The\nAssessee placed reliance, inter alia, on a judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Patnaik & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 161 ITR 365\nand of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Investa Industrial Corporation\nLtd., 119 ITR 360. The alternate argument and which was canvassed\nwithout prejudice need not detain us.\n\n7. The Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently found that the\nCamelot was fully owned subsidiary of the Assessee and engaged in\nthe manufacturing of tooth brushe…

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…\nmade because and for the purposes of business, the loss on sale of\nsuch investment is required to be treated as business loss. The\nAssessee placed reliance, inter alia, on a judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Patnaik & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 161 ITR 365\nand of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Investa Industrial Corporation\nLtd., 119 ITR 360. The alternate argument and which was canvassed\nwithout prejudice need not detain us.\n7. The Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently found that the\nCamelot was fully owned subsidiary of the Assessee and engaged in\nthe manufacturing of tooth brushes…

M/S AMU SHARES AND SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4364/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 317Section 73

…come, then in the absence of any challenge to the finding of fact, it cannot be a subject of inquiry. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [2001] 114Taxman 53/247 ITR 178 and Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 27 Taxman287/161 ITR 365. This was contested by the Revenue and reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sohan Pathak & Sons v. CIT [1953] 24ITR 395 and Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 573 to contend that as the statement of case is not clear, the Court should call for a supplementary statement of case from the Tribunal. We do not…

ORCHASP LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue

ITA 182/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Orchasp Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabcc4776F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/03/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Appellate Order Passed By The Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant. 2. The Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Amount Of Investment Made Is Completely In Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company Which Is Revenue In Nature & Not A Capital Expenditure. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Investments Written Off Of Rs.3,60,72,141/- Since The Said Amount Was Not Received From The Third Party To The Subsidiary & Thus, The Same Amount Was Written Off By The Virtue Of The Circular No. 69 Dt. 27-07-2011 Issued By Rbi.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

…n the case of DCIT, Range - Palmolive 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate India Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No.5485/Mum/2009 dated 25-10- 2011 for the assessment year 2003-04 following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Patnaik & Co. Ltd vs. CIT (161 ITR 365). 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the disallowance towards Purchase of software amounting to Rs. 9,02,037/- without considering the explanations as submitted by the appellant. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the expenditure incurred towards purchases of software comprises of licence is revenue in nature and thus is…

JAKHAU SALT COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Jakhau Salt Co. P. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – No.2, North Crescent Road, Of Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw 0867 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.01.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…f of investments made for the purpose of the business. (i). ACE designers Ltd v ACIT 275 Taman 100 (Kar.) (ii). CIT v Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd 370 ITR 728 Born. (iii). Indian Commerce and Industries Co P Ltd 213 ITR 533 Mad. (iv). Patnaik and Co Ltd. 161 ITR 365 SC. 18. On a perusal of these cases, the common ratio is that loss on investments made for the purpose of the business is allowable as a revenue loss. 19. In the case of ACE Designers Ltd. vs. ACIT (LTU) reported in 120 Taxman.com 321, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- "7. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal posi…

M/S SOUTHERN TPETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPRATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.232/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Southern Petrochemical V. The Income Tax Officer, Industries Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(1), 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan:Aaacs 4668 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. &

Section 115JSection 143Section 263

…of investments made for the purpose of the business. (i). ACE designers Ltd v ACIT 275 Taman 100 (Kar.) (ii). CIT v Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd 370 ITR 728 Born. (iii). Indian Commerce and Industries Co P Ltd 213 ITR 533 Mad. (iv). Patnaik and Co Ltd. 161 ITR 365 SC. 18. On a perusal of these cases, the common ratio is that loss on investments made for the purpose of the business is allowable as a revenue loss. M/s.SPIC Ltd. :: 15 :: 19. In the case of ACE Designers Ltd. vs. ACIT (LTU) reported in 120 Taxman.com 321, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- "7. In the backdrop of aforesaid…

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’,VC, JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 201, 291/JP/2017 & 744/JP/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 13-14 & 14-15. cuke M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Chemicals Ltd., Gadepan, Circle-2, District Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 170, 335/JP/2017 & 821/J…

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

REFEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2939/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

…d on the favorable decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd (370 ITR 728) which was - 7 - ITA No: 2938 & 2939/Chny/2017 rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Patnaik and Co. (161 ITR 365). Similarly, the amount of Rs.508 Lacs paid by assessee towards corporate guarantee would be allowable deduction since the assessee stood guarantor for STPL. The guarantee was given with a view to fund the takeover of KERPL by STPL. The loss thus incurred would be allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act as per decision of Chennai Tribunal in ACIT Vs W.S…

REFEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2938/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/272/2013HC Kerala04 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943 ITA NO. 272 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 31/COCH/2010 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/ APPELLANT : M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD., 6TH FLOOR, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-31. (PAN NO:AAACA69900) BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT : THE DE…

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…ed order. The gist of all these case laws was also filed by the assessee in its written submissions which have already been extracted in the impugned order. Notable amongst these decisions are the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Patnaik & Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (161 ITR 365); Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. (370 ITR 728); & Mumbai Tribunal in Camlin India Private Ltd. (ITA No.928/Mum/88). 8.5.3 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions and noted the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in United Breweries Ltd. V/s ACIT (ITA No.879 of 2007; 54 Taxmann.com 8) which hel…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…as made because and for the purposes of business, the loss on sale of such investment is required to be treated as business loss. The Assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patnaik. &. Co. Ltd. Vs. C1T, 161 ITR 365 and of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd., 119 ITR 360, The alternate argument and which was canvassed without prejudice need not detain us. 7. The Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently found that the Camelot was fu.ly owned subsidiary of the Assessee and engaged in the manufacturing of tooth brushes exclus…

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

M/S ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

ITA/184/2013HC Karnataka09 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 28

…ee on 22.04.2004 and 23.06.2004 to wind up WOS in USA and also write off exports receivable. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed in ‘CIT VS. M/S COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD’, 370 ITR 718 (BOM.), ‘PATNAIK AND CO LTD. VS. CIT’, 161 ITR 365 (SC), ‘CIT VS. INVESTA INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD’, (1979) 119 ITR 380, ‘ADDL. CIT VS. BMS (P) LTD’, 119 ITR 321 (MAD.), ‘CIT VS. DHANDAYUTHAPATI FOUNDRY (PRIVATE) LIMITED’, 123 ITR 709 (MAD.), ‘INDIAN COMMERCIAL AND INDSUTRIES CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT’, 213 ITR 533 (MAD.), ‘CIT VS. INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE ENTERPRISES (P) 8 LTD’, 118 ITR…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/81/2011HC Karnataka01 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…ner of Income Tax (Appeals). [See: ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE VS. K.Y.PILLIAH AND SONS’, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC)]. The aforesaid principle was referred to approval in ‘PATNAIK AND CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA’, (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC) and ‘GANAPATHY AND COMPANY VS. THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX BANGALORE’, (2016) 381 ITR 363 (SC). 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled principles, the facts of the case in hand may be examined. In order to claim deduction the assessee has to prove that the payment was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose…

NATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Research Development Vs. Dcit, Corporation, Circle-13(1), 20-22, Zamroodpur Community New Delhi Centre, Anusandhan Vikas, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn2025K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niren Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…dustries Corporation [. 4 SOT 239], decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive Ltd [378 ITR 728]. Thus, he claimed that the above loss is allowable as business loss. He further relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 161 ITR 365. 7. The ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the investment made by the assessee is a capital investment. There is no transfer of such shares during the year. The assets of the company in the form of equity investment have been merely written off. He further stated that permanent diminution in the valu…

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) id affirmed and

ITA 5378/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Hindustan Petroleum The Addl.Cit, Range-1(1), Corporation Ltd., Mumbai 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, V/S Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaach1118B Appellant Respondent

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ital assets in the books of accounts. The gain or loss on sale has to be treated u/s 45. The CIT(A) also erred in upholding the same. Appellants refer to and rely upon the following decisions in support of their contentions:-  Patnaik & Co.Ltd vs CIT(Orissa) 161 ITR 365 (SC)  CIT vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd 119 ITR 595 (Bom) > CIT vs. Industry and Commerce Enterprise 118 ITR 606 (Orissa) > CIT vs. BMS 119 ITR 321 (MAD) > CIT vs. Dhandayuthanpani 123 ITR 709 (MAD) 7. Deduction for feasibility study expenses - Rs. 45,03,5807- Appellants submit that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and a true an…

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2