R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. v. CIT

301 ITR 309Supreme Court of India2008#6451 most cited
18

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

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. v. CIT

SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…: Tanna & modi vs CIT 292 ITR 209 (SC) K.P.Mohammed Salim vs CIT 300 ITR 302 (SC) New India assurance co ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia 13 SCR 598 K.P.Varghese vs ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC); Indian Hotels co ltd. vs ITO 245 ITR 538 (SC) R & B Falcon (A) pty ltd. vs CIT 301 ITR 309 (SC) LIC vs Retires LIC officers association AIR 2008 SC 1485 8. The CIT(E) failed to follow the principle that…

CIPLA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/MUM/2021[206-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 262/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 265/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 264/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 263/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2009-10) Cipla Limited Cipla House, Peninsula Business Park, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaacc1450B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asst. Cit, Cc-1(2), 9Th Floor, Room.No. 906, Old C.G.O. Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Sh. Yogesh Thar अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anand Mohan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022

For Respondent: Sh. Anand Mohan
Section 115W

…mann.com 409 (Del. Trib.) and T&T Motors Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 341 ITR 332 (Del.) restored the issue back to the file of AO by observing as under: “10. Further, as it was considered by the Delhi Benches that in case of “R&B Falcon (A) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT” – [2008] 301 ITR 309/169 Taxman 515 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the interpretation of Central Board of Direct Taxes in its circular being in the realm of executive construction should primarily had to be bounded safe and except where it violates any provision of law or is contrary to any judgment rendered by any court, therefore, if the interpretati…

ITO -E (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. INDO ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6237/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITO-E (2)(4) Vs. Indo Italian Chamber of 503, 5th Floor Commerce & Industry Piramal Chambers 502, Bengal Industry Lalbaug, Parel Compound Mumbai- 400 012 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai- 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AABCT1939R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Assessee by None Date of Hearing 14/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement 22/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M.BALAGANESH (AM): This appeal in ITA No.6237/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Incom…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M./S WIPRO LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/231/2013HC Karnataka11 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115WSection 260Section 260ASection 3Section 7

…fit tax is attracted. In this connection, our attention has been invited to Section 115WB of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'ESKAYEF LTD. VS. CIT', 245 ITR 116, 'R & B FALCON (A) PVT. LTD. VS. CIT', 301 ITR 309 and decisions of Advance Rulings Authority in cases of R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD., IN RE, 289 ITR 369 and SINGAPORE TOURSIM BOARD, IN RE, 307 ITR 34. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 11 assessee submitted that fringe benefit tax is a tax of expenditure and the expenditure itself can be divided into three categories viz., bus…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi. And L.T. Foods Ltd., ACIT Unit No. 134, First Floor, Vs. Central Circle-19, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre New Delhi New Delhi. PAN No. AACCA3104G Appellants Respondents Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Smt. Deepashree Rao, CA Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA Reven…

M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi. And L.T. Foods Ltd., ACIT Unit No. 134, First Floor, Vs. Central Circle-19, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre New Delhi New Delhi. PAN No. AACCA3104G Appellants Respondents Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Smt. Deepashree Rao, CA Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA Reven…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/385/2012HC Karnataka16 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115WSection 260Section 260A

…6 have to be read separately and sub-Section (2) expands the scope of sub-Section (1). In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘R & B FALCON (A) PTY. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX’ (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC) and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in ‘GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY Vs. UNION OF INDIA’ (2017) 395 ITR 457 (GUJARAT). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the fringe benefit tax was introduced in the year 2006 and the same was withdrawn in 2010. It is further submitted that sub- Se…

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/87/2012HC Karnataka04 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…OTHER V. UOI & OTHERS’, (2006) 285 ITR 506 (CAL.)’, ‘CIT, BANGALORE V. M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.’, 2011-TIOL-711-HC-KAR-IT, ‘CBDT CIRCULAR NO.495 DATED 22.09.1987, ‘CIT VS. SRF LTD.’, (2012) 342 ITR 106 (DELHI), ‘R& B FLCON (A) PTY. LTD. V. CIT’, (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), ‘CIT V. WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES’, (2008) 297 ITR 17, ‘HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DCIT’, (2010) 325 ITR 102, ‘ CIT V. PAHARPUR COLLING TOWERS (P) LTD.’, (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC), 10 ‘SRI.VENKATESHWARA TOURIST HOME (P) LTD.’, (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC), ‘SRI.VENKATESHWARA TOURIST HOME (P) LTD. V. ADIT (INVESTIGATION)…

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income KM Stone, NH-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAFFN 8164 R Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari & Ashok Mundra (CAs) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok CIT-DR Date of hearing 16/03/2020 Date of 20/03/2020 Pronouncement O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, Bikaner dated 16.03.2018 passed U/s 263 of th…

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

WP/26037/2005HC Karnataka06 Dec 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

Section 115

…independently identifiable, have been subjected to tax under this chapter-XII-H. Hence the above contention is incorrect. 7. The revenue seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to reply on the following judgments. a) R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd., Vs. CIT 301 ITR 309 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with Circular No.8/2005 dated: 29/08/2005 23 has dealt with the concept of fringe benefit tax, interpretation of provisions of Section 115 WB and also the object of the Parliament in introducing the concept of fringe benefits. This Hon’ble Court attention is invited to paras-12, 13, 14 and…

SHRI SHARAD AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result, all these three appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed

ITA 153/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to throw light on the object and purpose of the particular provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this court in K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) , at 609.” Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC) ,it was held that (page 323): “ Rules of executive construction in a situation of this nature may also be applied. Where a representation is made by the maker of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.” From the above it is clear t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FUTURA BIOPLANTS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1271/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 2

…unds No. 1 and 2 of appeal stand partly allowed.” 5. Coming to the judgmental law of the land, the CIT(A) while giving relief to the assessee has relied on following decisions mentioned at Para No.4.3.5 of his order : 1. R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 309 (SC) 2. ACIT Vs. Rogini Garments 294 ITR 15 (AT (Chn) (SB) 3. K.P. Verghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 4. Cocoa Cola India Inc. Vs. ACIT 309 ITR 194 (P&H HC) 5. CIT Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. 261 ITR 721 (Ker. HC) 6. Eventually, the CIT(A) held that the income earned by the assessee on sale of saplings constitute deemed agricultural incom…

SANJAY KUMAR PODDAR,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

ITA 3150/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 10Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…on to throw light on the object and purpose of the particular provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this Court in K.P. Verghese – vs ITO 1981), 131 ITR 597 (SC), at 609. Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), it was held that (Page 323):- Rules of executive construction in a situation of this nature may also be applied. Where a representation is made by the makers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.’’ 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High…

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 4571/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…urpose of the particular 10 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this Court in K.P. Verghese - vs ITO 1981), 131 ITR 597 (SC), at 609. Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), it was held that (Page 323):- Rules of executive construction in a situation of this nature may also be applied. Where a representation is made by the makers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.‟‟ 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High…

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3543/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…urpose of the particular 10 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this Court in K.P. Verghese - vs ITO 1981), 131 ITR 597 (SC), at 609. Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), it was held that (Page 323):- Rules of executive construction in a situation of this nature may also be applied. Where a representation is made by the makers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.‟‟ 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High…

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3542/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…urpose of the particular 10 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this Court in K.P. Verghese - vs ITO 1981), 131 ITR 597 (SC), at 609. Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), it was held that (Page 323):- Rules of executive construction in a situation of this nature may also be applied. Where a representation is made by the makers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.‟‟ 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High…

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…urpose of the particular 10 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this Court in K.P. Verghese - vs ITO 1981), 131 ITR 597 (SC), at 609. Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), it was held that (Page 323):- Rules of executive construction in a situation of this nature may also be applied. Where a representation is made by the makers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.‟‟ 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High…

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD. vs. CIT,

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)
Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…any expenditure mentioned therein for benefit of a person, not being an employee, in the course of business or profession. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Page 6 of 14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. v. CIT, 301 ITR 309 (SC). 7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record, we find that the CIT has revised the assessment order having invoked the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on certain points illustrated in para No.3 hereinabove. We have ca…