What is Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is deductible in the year it is determined and crystallised as a liability, even if it relates to a transaction of an earlier year, provided accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 35D, Section 44AB.

Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (213 ITR 523)

Q: How many judgments cite Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT?

311 judgments on BharatTax cite Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (213 ITR 523), spanning 2010 to 2026.

M/S Mohan Impex, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata, Lucknow

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

ITA 1078/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1078/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Mohan Impex Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-35, Kolkata 33-A, Chatterjee International 14Th Floor, 110, Shantipally Aayakar Purva Kolkata – 700 071. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aahfm 3962 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1078/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Mohan Impex Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-35, Kolkata 33-A, Chatterjee International 14th Floor, 110, Shantipally Aayakar Purva Kolkata – 700 071. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAHFM 3962 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 10/04/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per…

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1652/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1651/AHD/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

M/S. Lakhani Impex, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1648/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

M/S. Lakhani Impex, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1647/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

Shreyansh Corporation, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1642/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

Shreyansh Corporation, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1641/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

M/S. Samarth India, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1630/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

M/S. Samarth India, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1629/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

Fouress Engg (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 754/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S Fouress Engg (I) Ltd. Dcit Range-5(1) 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahalaxmi Chamber, Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026 Pan:Aaacf5897K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr.K. Shivram With : Ms Nilam Jadhav -Advocates Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop ( Sr. DR)

Section 137(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…when the liability to pay is crystallized in the year of approval, therefore, deductable in computing the profit from the period ending when liability was crystallized. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industry Vs CIT 213 ITR 523 (Guj) ITA No. 754/Mum/2016 - M/s Fouress Engg (I) Ltd. held that merely because the expenses related to a transaction of an earlier year does not become a liability payable in the earlier year unless it can be said that the liability was determined and crystallized in the year in question. 16. In view of the above legal position, the liability…

M/S. Shreya Impex, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1824/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1653/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…n the various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. V. CIT [115 ITR 27 (Guj)] and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Vijay VishinMeghani (supra). 9. Replying to the above, the ld.DR contended that the explanation of the assessee is not bona fide and acceptable for the pretty long time of delay of more than 1000 days in 6 appeals and more than 2800 days in other 5 appeals. The ld.DR, further submitted that despi…

Lmj International Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 80I

…g, the submission made by the ld AR that the appellant company was allowed deduction under these sections in the assessment year 2006-07 hence, in view of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court's decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v CIT 11 CTR 139 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang v CIT 193 IR 321, deduction under these sections has to be allowed to the appellant in the assessment year 2009-10 also. (v) Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal position, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled…

ACIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sonata Software Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6463/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2)(2) Sonata Software Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.348, 3Rd Floor 208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcs8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 21/03/2018

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 9

…m of deduction in the initial year of claim the Revenue Authorities cannot deny the claim of deduction in subsequent years. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., 123 ITR 669 (Guj) and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers, 216 ITR 548 (Bom). 4. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. It is the say of the Ld. DR that the AO has specifically pointed out the distinguishing facts. Ld. CIT(A) has also elaborately discussed the distin…

DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Associated Pigments Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2042/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: M.Satnaliwala, FCA

…en the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting. The answer is that the liability of an earlier year, which was crystallized during the year, cannot be ignored straight away. In Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 61/213 ITR 523 (Guj), it has been held that “if any liability, though relating to the earlier year, depends upon making a demand its acceptance by the assessee and such liability has been actually claimed and paid in the later previous years, it cannot be disallowed as deduction merely on the basis that the accounts are maintained on mercantile basis and that i…

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…not postpone its accrual, but if the liability is based on some contractual obligation, it arises only when it is ascertained.”Hence, the payment was allowed as deduction during the previous year 1959-60.  Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd vs. CIT (213 ITR 523) (Guj.) In this case it has been held that if any liability, though relating to the earlier year, depends upon making a demand and its acceptance by the assessee and such liability has been actually claimed and paid in the later previous years, it cannot be disallowed as deduction merely on the basis that the accounts are maintained on mercantile…

The ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad vs. The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 25/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri, Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. N. Shah, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ए’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य एवं Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM, लेखा सद"य के सम" । Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.25/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) Assistant Commissioner of The Ahmedabad बनाम/ Income Tax, District Co.op Bank Vs. Circle – 7, Ltd. Ahmedabad. Nr. Income Tax Office, Gandhi Bridge Naka, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAAT 1067 D .. (अ…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…ertinent to mention here that once the deduction for the very first is allowed then in subsequent year the deduction cannot be disallowed on the same ground. Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo's case (196 ITR 188) held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed li…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…ertinent to mention here that once the deduction for the very first is allowed then in subsequent year the deduction cannot be disallowed on the same ground. Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo's case (196 ITR 188) held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed li…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…ertinent to mention here that once the deduction for the very first is allowed then in subsequent year the deduction cannot be disallowed on the same ground. Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo's case (196 ITR 188) held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed li…

Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT

What is Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Mohan Impex, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata, Lucknow

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

M/S. Lakhani Impex, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat

M/S. Lakhani Impex, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat

Shreyansh Corporation, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

Shreyansh Corporation, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

M/S. Samarth India, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

M/S. Samarth India, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, OSD-1, Range-2, Surat

Fouress Engg (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

M/S. Shreya Impex, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Surat

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

Lmj International Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata

ACIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sonata Software Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Associated Pigments Ltd., Kolkata

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad vs. The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai