Products Ltd. v. CIT

161 ITR 65High Court#22905 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Products Ltd. v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1443/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…e is incidental to carrying on of business. b. CIT, Mysore Vs. Y. V.Sreenivas Murthy, 63 ITR 306 [Mysore High Court] c. CIT Vs. Abdul Razak & Co., 136 ITR 825 [Guj] d. Tar & bitumen Products Ltd., Vs. CIT, 136 ITR 833 [Cal], e. CIT Vs. Sri. Vinayaga Pictures, 161 ITR 65 [Mad], f CIT Vs. K.MMody, 141 ITR 903 [Born], g. Bilasrai Juharmal Vs. CIT, 141 ITR 915 [Born], h. CIT Vs. Cresent Films (P) Ltd., 248 ITR 670 [Mad], i. CIT Vs. Essen (F) Ltd., 49 ITR 109 [Mad]" 16. The Id. CIT(A), after considering the above submissions had allowed the relief. The Id. CIT(DR) has not placed any material on record controverting th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the issues in the Cross Objections raised have become infructuous and dismissed as such

ITA 1442/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40A(3)

…e is incidental to carrying on of business. b. CIT, Mysore Vs. Y. V.Sreenivas Murthy, 63 ITR 306 [Mysore High Court] c. CIT Vs. Abdul Razak & Co., 136 ITR 825 [Guj] d. Tar & bitumen Products Ltd., Vs. CIT, 136 ITR 833 [Cal], e. CIT Vs. Sri. Vinayaga Pictures, 161 ITR 65 [Mad], f. CIT Vs. K.M.Mody, 141 ITR 903 [Born], g. Bilasrai Juharmal Vs. CIT, 141 ITR 915 [Born], h. CIT Vs. Cresent Films (P) Ltd., 248 ITR 670 [Mad], i. CIT Vs. Essen (P) Ltd., 49 ITR 109 [Mad]” 16. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the above submissions had allowed the relief. The ld. CIT(DR) has not placed any material on record controverting…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…ts that the Appeal has no basis in as much as not question as to the perversity in the ITAT's order has either been raised or pleaded and thus the appeal is not liable to be ITA No.55/2017 Page 15 of 25 entertained. He relies upon Patnaik & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 161 ITR 65 and CIT vs. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. 199 ITR 12 (SC) in support of his submissions. Analysis and Reasoning 24. In the present appeal, the Revenue has only challenged the impugned order of the ITAT to the extent of deletions made by the ITAT in respect of Shri Amar Singh, Shri Chandan Singh, Shri Ram Chander (sic Ram Charan) and Smt. Sunita. The impu…