Rankandir Estates (P) Ltd. v. PCIT, Supreme Court

224 ITR 654Supreme Court of India1997#17262 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing Rankandir Estates (P) Ltd. v. PCIT, Supreme Court

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…alabar Industrial Co. ltd Vs. CIT Supreme Court (109 Taxman 66 b. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs. PCIT Kolkata High Court 70 Taxmann.com, 124 c. Rankandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs. PCIT, Supreme Court 2017 77 Taxmann.com 285 d. South India Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT 224 ITR 654 10. The ld Authorised Representative in rejoinder submitted that report of the DDI was not before the ld Assessing Officer at the time of passing order, therefore, it cannot be said that the ld Assessing Officer has failed to consider the same and therefore, the order passed by him is erroneous. It was further stated that the page NO. 69 referred…

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2485/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

M/S Jupitors Radios Regd vs. DCIT Special Range X

The appeals are dismissed, with no

ITA/391/2005HC Delhi14 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 155Section 2Section 260ASection 32ASection 32A(5)Section 35A

…any connection with the partnership firm. He has referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Narang Dairy Products, (1996) 219 ITR 478 (SC) and South India Steel Rolling Mills versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 654 (SC). 7. We have considered the contentions raised by both the sides and find that in the present case the Tribunal was right in denying benefit of investment allowance/development rebate to the assessee, though not exactly for the reasons stated by them. There is no evidence or material on record and it is not even the claim of the appe…

M/S. Ranbaxy Holding Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1804/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri P. Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(3)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…andir Estates(P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT 386 ITR 162 as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT 77 taxmann.com 285 (Supreme Court) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Steel Rolling Mills vs. CIT 224 ITR 654. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that AO determined the income in regular assessment u/s 143 (3) of the I.T. Act and has examined the issue of deduction claimed u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. The AO examined the details minutely after considering the explanation of the assessee. The a…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263

…i. CIT v Infosys Technologies 341 ITR 293 ii. CIT v Hindustan Lever 343 ITR 161 iii. Frick India Ltd. v DCIT 6 ITR 82 iv. Major Metals Ltd. v Union of India 359 ITR 450 v. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT 243 ITR 83 vi. South India Steel Rolling Mills v CIT 224 ITR 654 34. After considering the arguments and submissions of both sides, the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for lA.Y.2009-2010, held as under :- “8.We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) on 9.12.2011. Subsequently, the Commissioner has issue a show cause not…