Schrader Duncan Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

50 SOT 68Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#25165 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Schrader Duncan Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

Netesoft India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…fore, this decision does not have precedence value as compared to the Calcutta High Court decision, which is based on Supreme Court decision on this point. He also pointed out that ITAT Mumbai Bench also in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 50 SOT 68/18 taxmann.com 287 has decided somewhat similar issue against the assessee. However, he distinguished the said decision and highlighted the points as to why said decision cannot be followed. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and CIT(A) and submitted that, firstly, if the income from the Long term capital…

Rare Investments, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) - 28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70

…ore, this decision does not have precedence value as compared to the Calcutta High Court decision, which is based on Supreme Court decision on this point. He also pointed out that ITAT Mumbai Bench also in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 68 has decided somewhat similar issue against the assessee. However, he 6 M/s. Rare Investments distinguished the said decision and highlighted the points as to why said decision cannot be followed. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and CIT(A) and submitted that, firstly, if the income from the Long term ca…

Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4751/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vibhadeep Investments & Acit (Osd)-3(3) Trading Limited Room No. 620 Vs. Mafatlal House, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Reclamation, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1946M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ore, this decision does not have precedence value as compared to the Calcutta High Court decision, which is based on Supreme Court decision on this point. He also pointed out that ITAT Mumbai Bench also in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 68 has decided somewhat similar issue against the assessee. However, he distinguished the said decision and highlighted the points as to why said decision cannot be followed. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and CIT(A) and submitted that, firstly, if the income from the Long term capital gain on sale of sha…