Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT

213 ITR 523High Court1995#248 most cited

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.

311

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. · CIT · 213 ITR 523 · deductible expenditure · mercantile basis · liability crystallised · earlier year transaction

Also reported as

11 CTR 139

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 35DSection 44ABSection 10(2A)Section 143(3A)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 43b(f)section 50bapproved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211initial assessment yearsection 35dwholly and exclusively for businesssection 80jsection 115jasection 80hhc

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

Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly allowed for statistical gly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5472/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR &For Respondent: Mr. Kirit Kamdar

…e allowed as deduction. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and chemical industries Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and chemical industries Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and chemical industries Ltd Vs CIT reported in 213 ITR 523, held that merely because an d Vs CIT reported in 213 ITR 523, held that merely because an d Vs CIT reported in 213 ITR 523, held that merely because an expense relates to a transaction of an earlier year, it does not expense relates to a transaction of an earlier year, it does not expense relates to a transaction of an earlier year, it does not…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…een accepted by the assessee and therefore, the amount has rightly been claimed. The assessee put reliance before the assessing officer on Jurisdictional High Court judgements in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. and Mahindra Mills Ltd. reported in 213 ITR 523 and 334 ITR 254 respectively for the proposition that the claim crystallized during the year under reference by way of receipt of demand notice though pertaining to previous period, is an allowable claim. 44. Similarly, the other component of the claim to the tune of Rs.77,03,859/- was explained before the assessing officer to be relatable to se…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…een accepted by the assessee and therefore, the amount has rightly been claimed. The assessee put reliance before the assessing officer on Jurisdictional High Court judgements in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. and Mahindra Mills Ltd. reported in 213 ITR 523 and 334 ITR 254 respectively for the proposition that the claim crystallized during the year under reference by way of receipt of demand notice though pertaining to previous period, is an allowable claim. 44. Similarly, the other component of the claim to the tune of Rs.77,03,859/- was explained before the assessing officer to be relatable to se…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…een accepted by the assessee and therefore, the amount has rightly been claimed. The assessee put reliance before the assessing officer on Jurisdictional High Court judgements in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. and Mahindra Mills Ltd. reported in 213 ITR 523 and 334 ITR 254 respectively for the proposition that the claim crystallized during the year under reference by way of receipt of demand notice though pertaining to previous period, is an allowable claim. 44. Similarly, the other component of the claim to the tune of Rs.77,03,859/- was explained before the assessing officer to be relatable to se…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…een accepted by the assessee and therefore, the amount has rightly been claimed. The assessee put reliance before the assessing officer on Jurisdictional High Court judgements in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. and Mahindra Mills Ltd. reported in 213 ITR 523 and 334 ITR 254 respectively for the proposition that the claim crystallized during the year under reference by way of receipt of demand notice though pertaining to previous period, is an allowable claim. 44. Similarly, the other component of the claim to the tune of Rs.77,03,859/- was explained before the assessing officer to be relatable to se…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…een accepted by the assessee and therefore, the amount has rightly been claimed. The assessee put reliance before the assessing officer on Jurisdictional High Court judgements in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. and Mahindra Mills Ltd. reported in 213 ITR 523 and 334 ITR 254 respectively for the proposition that the claim crystallized during the year under reference by way of receipt of demand notice though pertaining to previous period, is an allowable claim. 44. Similarly, the other component of the claim to the tune of Rs.77,03,859/- was explained before the assessing officer to be relatable to se…

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ocean Sparkle Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1017/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Ocean Sparkle Ltd Circle 5 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco2519H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Saurabh Soparkar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 80I

…ground there is no justification to uphold the stand of the IT authorities to deny the claim of the assessee for deduction under s. 80IB in relation to the profits and gains. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 11 CTR (Guj) 139; (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) and CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) relied on.” 14. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to confirm the order of the CIT(A) on the issue relating to deduction u/s. 80-IA and accordingly dismiss the Revenue appeals.” 12. In para 10 of the above order, the Tribunal has made a reference to the observation of the Hon…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 2067/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 2066/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1783/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1782/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 1594/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1291/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1290/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 1773/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 1772/AHD/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…T(A) noted that the expenses were allowable under the mercantile system of accounting in the year in which they crystallized, as per the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries vs. CIT (213 ITR 532). The CIT(A) also noted that the Similar disallowances in earlier years had been deleted by appellate authorities or the Tribunal, making the issue covered in favour of the assessee. 38. The AR, during the course of the hearing, before us stated that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Co- ordinate Benc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Travels Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 723/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…icer has to come to the reasonable belief/conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 6.2. We also place our reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd v. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 523 (Guj) wherein it had held that “merely because an expense relates to a transaction of an earlier year it does not become a liability payable in the earlier year unless it can be said that the liability was determined and crystallised in the year in question on the basis of maintaining accounts on the mercantile basis. In each case where the accou…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…dustrial Gases P. Ltd (ITR No. 229/1988) (Delhi High Court) (f) John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. THIS (ITA No. 4691/Mum/2005) (g) Escorts Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.4673/Del/2005) (Delhi Tribunal) (h) Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 523 (Gujarat)…

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…