S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

83 ITR 700Supreme Court of India1972#820 most cited

What is S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta authority for?

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.G. Mercantile Corporation v. CIT · Section 14 · income from other sources · residuary head of income · Section 45 · capital gains · taxing income

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 194-ISection 2(13)Section 24Section 37(1)Section 119

Issues it is cited on

section 57profits and gains of business or professionsection 32section 56income from other sourcessection 36(1)section 14aprevious yearsection 143(2)transfercompanybusiness

Judgments citing S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

Puranjit Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-26, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1358/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gupta, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT ( ld.DR)
Section 45(4)Section 55

…f the computation provided u/s. 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head is thus unacceptable. If the income cannot be taxed u/s. 45, it cannot be taxed at all as has been held in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC)”. 13. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the cases of Shri Amitabh Singh (supra) and Nawshir H. Mirza (supra) decided by the Coordinate benches of this Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision rendered in the said cases to hold that the amount in question received b…

ITO 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhanrajgir Business P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5585/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…ness & Profession" u/s. 28 of the I.T. Act, 1961 considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of GIT v/s. Mumbadvi Co-owners Co-operative 143 TR 150 (Bom) and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mercantile Corporation Vs. CIT 83 ITR 700(SC). Thus, the issue under appeal has been disputable issue. Further it is very evident that the Assesses has disclosed all the information in Return of income/Balance Sheet and computation of income, hence there is nothing which can show that there is concealment of income, hence, merely in change of heads of income, penalty could not be levied.…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1309/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1309/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maa Amba Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaecm 6507 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR
Section 143(3)Section 22

…was to let out the warehouse for which it had charged a composite rent for letting out the spaces along with fixtures, plants & amenities. The ld AO relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.G.Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd reported in 83 ITR 700 (SC) and Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs CIT (Civil Appeal No. 6459 to 6460 of 2001). The ld AO accordingly treated the income received from letting out warehouse under the head ‘house property’ and thereby not allowing expenses claimed in computing business income. 2.2. The assessee submitted that it was formed in the year 2006. The main object of…

Amit Kumar Choudhury, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 147Section 148Section 55(2)(a)

…f the computation provided u/s. 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head is thus unacceptable. If the income cannot be taxed u/s. 45, it cannot be taxed at all as has been held in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC)”. 13. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the cases of Shri Amitabh Singh (supra) and Nawshir H. Mirza (supra) decided by the Coordinate benches of this Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision rendered in the said cases to hold that the amount in question received…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment Private Limited (Formerly Known As Mahindra Air Services Limited ), Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed except for A

ITA 5993/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…defined both in the accountancy as well as by statute. There is no law that interest could be assessed only as 'income from other sources', partake as it does its' character from the underlying transaction from which it arises (C1T vs. Govinda Choudhury (1993)203 ITR 881 (Supreme Court). The case law cited stands also considered, only to find the same to be in agreement with the view expressed herein, confirming the stand of the Revenue, being essentially a question of fact, to be determined on an appreciation of the facts of the case, with the law being well settled. Finally, we observe the income arising has no…

M/S Hubli Electricity Supply Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

ITA/100025/2017HC Karnataka09 Feb 2018

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

Section 260ASection 263Section 80

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA ITA Nos.100025-100027/2017 C/W ITA No.100028/2017 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCIAL ADVISOR, SRI.B. ABDUL WAJID, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI.B.ABDUL HAI. …COMMON APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS V.K. GURUNATHAN, H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, S PARTHASARATHI JINITHA CHATTERJEE, MALLAHARAO K AND SMT. PRATHIBHA K, ADVS.) IN ITA…

M/S Shubh Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3551/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisubh Engineering Ltd, Vs. Dcit, D-60, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-8(1), Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacs1321F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kauslendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Subh Engineering Ltd, Vs. DCIT, D-60, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-8(1), Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACS1321F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chawla, Adv Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Revenue by: Shri Kauslendra Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 14/12/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – X I, New Delhi dated 19/1/201…

ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata vs. Smt Madhu Devi Saraf, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1325/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Madhu Devi Saraf [Pan: Alips 0989 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Keshari, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251

…a vs. CIT reported in [1971] 82 ITR 570; decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Divya Devi reported in [1996] 217 ITR 824 & the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1972] 83 ITR 700 in support of her contentions. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by making the following observations:- “10. I have considered the observation of AO and also the submission made by Ld. AR. It is noted from Deed of Sub-License made on 25.08.1995 that the appellant is “sub- licensee” of the shops and M/s Happy Home & Hotel Pvt. Ltd. is “License”…

Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3751/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 24

…75&3752/D/2013 & ,5401,5402&5241/D/2014 12 Vohra submitted that this judgment clearly clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. So far as reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC), he submitted that in that case assessee was not the owner of the property and on this background the judgment was rendered and would be inapplicable on the present case. 12. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-D.R., strongly relying upon the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), submitted that, what is to be seen here in thi…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…k guarantee to be offered to KPTCL in order to acquire a contract work, interest on such fixed deposits cannot be treated as an income from other sources and has to be treated as business income—CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 61 : (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) relied on” In this connection we also find guidance and support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons reported in 203 ITR 881. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below : “The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the exec…

M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…k guarantee to be offered to KPTCL in order to acquire a contract work, interest on such fixed deposits cannot be treated as an income from other sources and has to be treated as business income—CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 61 : (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) relied on” In this connection we also find guidance and support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons reported in 203 ITR 881. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below : “The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the exec…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…k guarantee to be offered to KPTCL in order to acquire a contract work, interest on such fixed deposits cannot be treated as an income from other sources and has to be treated as business income—CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 61 : (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) relied on” In this connection we also find guidance and support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons reported in 203 ITR 881. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below : “The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the exec…

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Nautilus Trading & Leasing P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5778/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5778/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit – 1(2) M/S. Nautilus Trading & Leasing Limited Room No.535, 5Th Floor 13, Meera Baug, Santacruz (W) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaccn 3989 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" धारा अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग" आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03/05/2013 Of The Cit(A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Deriving Income From House Property, Filed Its Return Of Income On 18/10/2007, Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1.05 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, On 4/12/2009, Determining Its Income At Rs.(-) 9.46 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 143Section 22Section 254(1)

…the income from the property should not be charged to tax under section 22 of the Act under the head ‘income from house property’.After considering the submission of the assessee, he referred to the cases of SG Mercantile Corporation Mercantile Private Ltd. (83 ITR 700) & Chennai Properties (266 ITR 685). He held that the assessee was incorporated on 27.3.2006, that it had taken a loan of Rs. 5778/M/13-Nautilus Trading & Leasing Ltd. 10.34 crores to acquire the property, that the claim of the assessee that it utilised its own business funds for purchasing the property was factually incorrect, that it had claim…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Fgp Ltd, Mumbai

In the results, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3474/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Fgp Ltd, 1(1)(1), Commercial Union, फनधभ/ Room No.579, 9, Wallace Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacf1671M (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms.Anupama Singla प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath

For Appellant: Ms.Anupama SinglaFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Kashinath
Section 27

…arrangements in addition to telephone and electricity and water facilities etc. The income has therefore to be assessed as business income. This view is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.G.Mercantile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (83 ITR 700). In the said case one of the object of the assessee in its memorandum of association was to take on lease or otherwise acquire and to hold, improve, lease or otherwise dispose of land, houses and other real estate and personal properties and to deal with the same commercially. The assessee had taken one property which was remodeled and repaired s…

ITO Ward-41(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Shyamal Banerjee, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1580/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…d 282 ITR 61 (All) referred to the decision in Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353, CEPT –vs.- Shree lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 451 (SC), CIT –vs.- Shanmugham [1984] 147 ITR 692 (Mad.), S.G. Mercantile Corpn. (P) Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC), and distinguished the decisions reported in Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 47 (Cal.) and CIT –vs.- Purshottam Dass [2001] 247 ITR 516 (Delhi) to reach a conclusion that when the property was used for commercial purpose by letting out the same with a furniture and fittings after obtaining Sarai licence from the District Magistrate…

Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1641/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…services and not merely to earn rental income. The ITA. Nos.1641&1203/Kol/2014-Bombay Plaza Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 6 Assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. -vs.- CIT ( 1972) 83 ITR 700(SC) wherein the facts were that the assessee was a private limited company. One of the objects specified in its Memorandum of Association was to take on lease or otherwise acquire and to hold improve, lease or otherwise dispose of land, houses and other real and personal property and to deal with the same commercially. Within less than two weeks o…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Sushena Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5257/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income The Times Of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5Th Floor, The Times Of India Building, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income The Times of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5th floor, The Times of India Building, Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N…

Sushena Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income The Times Of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5Th Floor, The Times Of India Building, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income The Times of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5th floor, The Times of India Building, Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2809/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2808 & 2809/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2003-04 & 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Tax, Circle, Haridwar Plot No. 1, Jasodharpur Industrial Area, Kotdwar GIR/PAN : AACCS8808F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Date of hearing 04.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These appeals of the Revenue are directed against two separate o…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2808/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2808 & 2809/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2003-04 & 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Tax, Circle, Haridwar Plot No. 1, Jasodharpur Industrial Area, Kotdwar GIR/PAN : AACCS8808F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Date of hearing 04.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These appeals of the Revenue are directed against two separate o…