Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam

25 VST 41Reported decision2009#17389 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 4(2)section 32ainitial assessment yearfull and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentsection 80ibkelvinatormere change of opinioneligible businesslive linkincome escaping assessment

Judgments citing Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 374/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…and others reported in [2010] 29 VST 214 (Mad), the first Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.11.2009, wherein it was held that a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [2009] 25 VST 41, observed that potato chips sold by the appellant under the same brand www.judis.name "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" are held to be classifiable as processed vegetables and not to come under a residuary entry. Following the said judgment, a contention was made that the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was totally erroneous. Ul…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 373/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…and others reported in [2010] 29 VST 214 (Mad), the first Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.11.2009, wherein it was held that a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [2009] 25 VST 41, observed that potato chips sold by the appellant under the same brand www.judis.name "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" are held to be classifiable as processed vegetables and not to come under a residuary entry. Following the said judgment, a contention was made that the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was totally erroneous. Ul…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 372/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…and others reported in [2010] 29 VST 214 (Mad), the first Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.11.2009, wherein it was held that a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [2009] 25 VST 41, observed that potato chips sold by the appellant under the same brand www.judis.name "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" are held to be classifiable as processed vegetables and not to come under a residuary entry. Following the said judgment, a contention was made that the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was totally erroneous. Ul…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 371/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…and others reported in [2010] 29 VST 214 (Mad), the first Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.11.2009, wherein it was held that a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [2009] 25 VST 41, observed that potato chips sold by the appellant under the same brand www.judis.name "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" are held to be classifiable as processed vegetables and not to come under a residuary entry. Following the said judgment, a contention was made that the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was totally erroneous. Ul…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 370/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…and others reported in [2010] 29 VST 214 (Mad), the first Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.11.2009, wherein it was held that a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [2009] 25 VST 41, observed that potato chips sold by the appellant under the same brand www.judis.name "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" are held to be classifiable as processed vegetables and not to come under a residuary entry. Following the said judgment, a contention was made that the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was totally erroneous. Ul…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (25 VST 41) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax