RD-4(4), THANE (2017) 105 ITD 599 (Mum.), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amalgamations Ltd.

248 ITR 611High Court2001#23948 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing RD-4(4), THANE (2017) 105 ITD 599 (Mum.), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amalgamations Ltd.

M/S. Ganga Electricals, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax.-1, Nashik

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

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs CIT [002] 125 Taxman 965 (Madras) / [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Madras) / [2003] 181 CTR 332 (Madras) [30-09-2002] 3. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. [2001] 118 Taxman 230 (Madras) / [2001] 248 ITR 611 (Madras) / [2001] 171 CTR 154 (Madras) [06-11-2000] 4. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of CIT Vs Emery Stone Mfg. Co [1995] 83 Taxman 643 (Rajasthan) / [1995] 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan) / [1995] 126 CTR 345 (Rajasthan) [21-07-1994] 5. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Thalibai F Jain Vs ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Karnataka) [14-03-1975]…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…to be erroneous in law and it could not be revised under section 263. 2.8. The Ld. CIT-DR also relied upon the decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Neyveli Lignite Corporatoin Ltd., order dated 06/11/2000, [2001] 118 Taxman 230 (Madras)/[2001] 248 ITR 611 (Madras)/[2001] 171 CTR 154 (Madras). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder:- “The assessment year with which we are concerned in this matter is 1977-78. The assessee had set up in the year 1977, a belt reconditioning plant designed for retreading of conveyor belts. The process involved cleaning, inspection, peeling, drying,…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…[1968] 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court), COLORCRAFT KASHIMIRA CERAMIC COMPOUND v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), THANE (2017) 105 ITD 599 (Mum.), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amalgamations Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 963 (MAD.), CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd 248 ITR 611 (Madras). 2.2. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that such explanation has not been invoked by Ld. Pr. Commissioner, which cannot be applied now for which reliance was placed upon the decision (2016) 70 taxman.com 227 (Mum.) and another decision in ITA No.3205/Mum/2017) (Del. Trib.). It was also claimed that 5 Maharashtra A…