How many judgments cite Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT (324 ITR 396), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37(1), Section 57(iii), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 2(28A).

Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT

324 ITR 396High Court2010#1719 most cited

What is Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT authority for?

This case establishes that merely having sufficient interest-free own funds does not automatically prevent interest disallowance on interest-free advances; the assessee must affirmatively prove the business or commercial expediency of such advances.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Punjab Stainless Steel Industries · 324 ITR 396 · section 36(1)(iii) · section 37(1) · interest free advances · disallowance of interest expenditure · commercial expediency · business purpose · own funds · business purpose proof

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 404

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57(iii)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 2(28A)Section 234A Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 36(i)(iii)section 33ac section 115v interest free advances section 10(2)section 2(28a)section 36(1)(iii)business expediency section 57(iii)commercial expediency disallowance of interest expenditure section 33

Judgments citing Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT

Synergy Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Mumbai

ITA 4841/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4841/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…nded out of borrowed funds and not out of any credit balance available with assessee-firm. It was held that impugned order passed by authorities below was to be upheld - Punjab Stainless Steel bids. Vs CIT Delhi High Court [2011] 196 Taxman 404 (Delhi)//201OJ 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) In the case of M M Nagalinga nadar Sons 318 ITR 210, the borrowed fund which was suppose to be utilised only for the business purpose, some part were transferred to partner's personal account. Hence, proportionate disallowance of interest was justified. Expenditure may either relate to new units on expansion of existing business or it m…

M/S. Mavoor Trade Links, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 719/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)

…expenditure may not have been incurred under 6 any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of “commercial expediency”. 9. The High Court of Delhi, in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. vs. CIT 324 ITR 396, has further elaborated “commercial expediency” would include such purpose as is expected by the ass to advance its business interest and may include measures taken for preservation, protection or advancement of its business interests, which has to be distinguished from the personal interest of its directors or partners, as the case may be”. 10.…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1993/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1993/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Aha Holdings Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Trade View Building, Income Tax-6, बनाम/ Oasis Complex, Kamala Mills, Room No. 515, 5 Th Floor, Gate No.4, Pandurang Budhkar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Vs. Marg, Lowe Parel, Karve Road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai -400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aafcs6404E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Hioro Rai, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Hioro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…on of section 37(1) of the Act as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and also the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) and also another decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 121 Taxman 706 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered the issue of reasonableness of expenditure by observing as under:- “The jurisdiction of the revenue is confined to deciding reality of the expenditure, namely,…

M/S. Mavoor Trade Links, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of “commercial expediency”. 9. The High Court of Delhi, in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. vs. CIT 324 ITR 396, has further elaborated “commercial expediency” would include such purpose as is expected by the ass to advance its business interest and may include measures taken for preservation, protection or advancement of its business interests, which has to be distinguished from the personal interest of its directors or partners, as the case may be”. 10.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mrg Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4070/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4070/Del./2014 Assessment Year 2008-2009 M/s. MRG Developers Pvt. The DCIT, Ltd., K.P. Block, Plot Cinema Pacific North vs., Central Circle-16, Community Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. New Delhi. PAN AADCM4743Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR For Assessee : Shri P.K. Mishra, C.A. Date of Hearing : 22.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vrv Foods Ltd., Noida

ITA 4456/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…he contentions raised by the assessee that the loan has been advanced out of its own interest free funds and the same were given for business expediency. No doubt, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Punjab 20. Stainless Steel Industries vs. CIT-VII (2010) 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) relied upon by the ld. DR for the Revenue held that when advances have been made out of borrowed funds and not out of credit balance available with assessee company, interest has to be disallowed. 21. However, in the instant case, when the assessee has come up with specific defence that the advance has been made out of interest free…

Vrv Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4121/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 1603/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaito Vs. M/S. Max Ventures Ward-16(3), Room No. Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 304, C.R. Building, I.P. (Formerly Known As M/S. Estate, New Delhi Dynavest India Pvt. Ltd.) Max House, 1, Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase 3, New Delhi – 110 052 Pan Aaacd0213H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 68Section 69B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO Vs. M/s. Max Ventures Ward-16(3), Room No. Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 304, C.R. Building, I.P. (Formerly known as M/s. Estate, New Delhi Dynavest India Pvt. Ltd.) Max House, 1, Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase 3, New Delhi – 110 052 PAN AAACD0213H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Department by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate, Ms. Deepika Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 05/08/2019 Date of 01/11/2019 pronouncement O…

Super Auto Centre, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7709/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

For Appellant: SH. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: MS. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng decisions may kindly be considered with regard to disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of Page 4 of 8 interest free loans given to Directors/ Partners or their close relatives: 1. Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs CIT [2011) 196 Taxman 404 (Delhi)/[2010) 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) In this case there was absolutely no finding recorded by Tribunal that interest free advances were made by assessee to sister concern for its business purposes. It was also noticed that advances were extended out of borrowed funds and not out of any credit balance available with assessee-firm. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that impugned…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lucina Land Development Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed, and addition of Rs

ITA 1464/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148(2)

…DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1465/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 1464/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) ACIT Vs. Lucina Land Development Ltd. Circle-15(2) F-60, 2nd Floor, Malhotra C.R.Building Building, New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi PAN : AABCL2130N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 13.11.2014…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lucina Land Development Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed, and addition of Rs

ITA 1465/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148(2)

Smt. Deepti Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4944/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Deepti Agarwal, Vs Acit, C/O M/S Pra Taxindia, Circle-53(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aampa0573C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th July, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…se this issue was not examined in previous years, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer cannot make addition u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in this year. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel reported in 324 ITR 396 and the various decisions relied on by the ld.CIT(A) in his order, she submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is fully justified in sustaining the addition u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. So far as the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that no separate notice of enhancement was given, she submitted that the records of the CIT(A) has to be called for.…

Manikant Thakur, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4596/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessee and in support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Stainless Steel Inds. vs. CIT 324 ITR 396. Further with regard to addition of Rs. 6,85,300/- on account of factory rent expenses is concerned, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the parties have legal right in the property on which the factory of the assessee is running, however, the said building is an ancestral property located in Lal Dora area, so the shares of the owners…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Block-B, Golf Course Road, Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Sector-54, Vatika Towers, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacf9776H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Despite Service Of Notice, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Was Further Seen That On The Previous Occasions Also Nobody Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Ground Of Appeal No.1 By The Revenue Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Block-B, Golf Course Road, Circle-9(1), New Delhi. Sector-54, Vatika Towers, Gurgaon. PAN: AAACF9776H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 9th October, 2015 of the CIT(A)-3, New Delhi, relati…

Suresh Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 845/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Garg, Vs. Ito, 2629A, Naya Bazar, Ward-47(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aafpg4752Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…and without any business purposes, interest to extent that advance had been made without carrying any interest is to be disallowed u/s 36(i)(iii). The Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs CIT(2011) 196 Taxman 404 (Delhi (2010) 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) . Hon’ble Court held that in this case there was absolutely no finding recorded by tribunal that interest free advances were made by assessee to sister concern for its business purposes. It was also noticed that advances were extended out of borrowed funds and not out of any credit balance available with assessee firm it was held that in…

Kanakia Spaces P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6686/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Acit, Central Circle- Ltd. 215 Atrium, 10Th Floor, 4(1), Air India Vs. Near Marriot Courtyard Building, 19Th Floor, Hotel, Andheri-Kurla Road, Nariman Point, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400093. Pan No. Aaack2629J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 24

…n-interest bearing funds are sufficient enough to cover interest- free friendly loans and advances made. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee and relying on the decision in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds (2011) 324 ITR 396 (Del) held that interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) is allowed in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business and profession for commercial expediency and thus disallowed proportionate interest expenses of Rs.2,26,46,285/- on notional basis. 10. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to prove that it had interest-free fu…

Prabhakar Mishra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

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

ITA 2255/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2255/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prabhakar Mishra -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aezpm 7452 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

…f own funds. The ld CITA placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd reported in 286 ITR 1 (P&H HC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Limited reported in 324 ITR 396 (Del) and upheld the action of the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5 6 Prabhakar Mishra A.Yr. 2012-13 3.2. We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, we find that the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds at its kitty as is evident from the balance sheet of the assessee. Since the interest free funds…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4769/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 14A

…order dated 30th April, 2012 has held that the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 needs reconsideration. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 324 ITR 396 (Del.) he submitted that the onus is on the assessee to establish the commercial expediency. He submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) in para 4.4 of his order has shifted this onus to the Assessing Officer regarding the establishment of nexus between interest free funds and amount of advance which is not correct. Without prejudice to the above…

Jaya Hospitalas, Warangal, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Warangal Range, Warangal

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

ITA 202/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 202/HYD/2016 (A.Y. 2011-2012) M/s. Jaya Hospitals, Addl. Commissioner of Vs H.No.6-2-234, Chowrastha Income Tax, Warangal Hanamkonda, Range, Warangal. Warangal. [PAN: AABFJ 2166 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of Hearing : 19.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2018 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, AM 1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT (A)-3, H…

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1553/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2012-13 DCIT, Circle-1, Aayakar M/s Durga Automotives Pvt. बनाम / Bhawana, Paribahan Ltd., T.N Road, Dagapur, V/s. Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri, Pin-734003 Siliguri Pin-734010 [PAN No.AABCD 7913 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Soumyajitd Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ld.Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 20-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hear…