Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT

117 Taxmann.com 96High Court2020#270 most cited

What is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

291

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT · education cess deduction · dividend distribution tax deduction · allowable expenditure · section 40(a)(ii) · cess allowability · DDT allowability · Bombay High Court · 423 ITR 426 · income tax deduction

Also reported as

423 ITR 426

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 40(a)(ii)Section 234BSection 115JBSection 270ASection 43BSection 155(18)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(4)section 115wasection 40(a)(ii)section 2(43)section 115wsection 2(11)section 135far analysisprohibited by lawsection 194hdividend distribution taxsection 40(a)

Judgments citing Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT

M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., (Erstwhile:M/S. Bellflower Properties Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1980/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Pune (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Pune Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent

…erefore, admit the additional ground and espouse it for disposal on merits. 22. We find that the issue raised through the additional ground is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sesa Goa Lt. Vs. JCIT (2020) 423 ITR 426 (Bom.) in which it has been held that Education Cess is not disallowable expenditure u/s.40(a)(ii) of the Act. Similar view has earlier been taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. JCIT (2018) 102 CCH 0202 (Raj-HC). As Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., correctness of the amount has not bee…

Baroda Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2547/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Baroda Industries Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax- Circle – 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan 3(1)(1), Mumbai 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb2428A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM M/s. Baroda Industries Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax- Circle – 2nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan 3(1)(1), Mumbai 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACB2428A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahendra Gohel Revenue by Shri Oommen Tharian Date of Hearing 26/11/2020 Date of Pronouncement 27/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2547/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 arises out of the order by the ld. Commiss…

M/S. Jindal World Wide Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabadq

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

ITA 2316/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…ding before us, the Ld. Counsel has referred CBDT Circular No. 91/58/66-ITJ(19) DT. 18th May, 1967. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that identical issue was decided in favour of the assesse by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT 117 Taxmann.com 96 (2020). It was further submitted by the ld. Counsel that identical claim was also allowed by Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6612/Mum/2018 vide order dated 30.06. 2020 and Delhi ITAT in the case of Mufg Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT (International Taxation) in ITA No. 7895/Del/2019dated 16/10/2020. 19 . AY. 2014-15…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3389/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(TP)A No. 3262/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Addl.CIT LTU – 1, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Vs. World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400005. PAN No. AAACR 4849 R Appellant Respondent IT(TP)A No. 3389/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT LTU – 1, World Trade Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Centre, Centre-1, 29th Floor, Vs. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – Narima…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3262/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(TP)A No. 3262/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Addl.CIT LTU – 1, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Vs. World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400005. PAN No. AAACR 4849 R Appellant Respondent IT(TP)A No. 3389/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT LTU – 1, World Trade Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Centre, Centre-1, 29th Floor, Vs. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – Narima…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Vs Havells India Ltd. ACIT 1, Raj Narian Marg, LTU Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi AAACH0351E (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, Ms. Deepa Shree Rao, CA, Sh. Vibhu Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Sunit Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 03/07/2012 passed by the CIT(A)-LTU, New D…

Aptean India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2679/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Ramprewala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Aptean India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of Level-5 (8th Floor), Income Tax, ‘Golden Heights’, No.1/2, Circle-1(1)(2), 59th C Cross, 4th M Block, Vs. Bengaluru. Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 100. PAN – AAACC 5890 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Aliasgar Ramprewala, C.A Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 20-10-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 06-11-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appe…

DCIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…1 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019 & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप,उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक!,"या"यक सद$य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-2, LTU, Kolkata Vs. M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. (PAN: AABCC 1682 J) Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 In ITA No.2149/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, LTU, Kolkata (PAN: AABCC 1682 J) Cross Objec…

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…of a court cannot be taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesagoa Ltd. Vs JCIT(2008) 294 ITR 101. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that it is imperative on the part of the A.O. to mention in the reasons for reopening that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, when the reopening is done after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by Hon’ble Madras High Cou…

M/S.Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…of a court cannot be taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesagoa Ltd. Vs JCIT(2008) 294 ITR 101. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that it is imperative on the part of the A.O. to mention in the reasons for reopening that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, when the reopening is done after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by Hon’ble Madras High Cou…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…of a court cannot be taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesagoa Ltd. Vs JCIT(2008) 294 ITR 101. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that it is imperative on the part of the A.O. to mention in the reasons for reopening that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, when the reopening is done after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by Hon’ble Madras High Cou…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…of a court cannot be taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesagoa Ltd. Vs JCIT(2008) 294 ITR 101. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that it is imperative on the part of the A.O. to mention in the reasons for reopening that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, when the reopening is done after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by Hon’ble Madras High Cou…

Msm Discovery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ITA No.1935/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 1 MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member MSM Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1st Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAGCS4253E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R D…

Sony Pictures Networks India P.Ltd(Successor of Msm Discovery Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6630/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6630/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited (Successor Of Msm Discovery Private Limited) Interface Building No.7, 5Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 Pan:Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-12(3)(2), 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ जे ”, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी नबीन कुमार "धान, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 6630/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited (Successor of MSM Discovery Private Limited) Interface Building No.7, 5th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 PAN:AABCS1728D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2), 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai…

Kec International Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kec International Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बनाम/ 463, Ceat Mahal Room No.568 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.115/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-5(1)(1) Kec International Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.568 463, Ceat Mahal Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta and AnujFor Respondent: S/Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (199 ITR 351). The Ld. AR, pointed out that the issue, on merits, is covered in assessee’s favor by the recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited V/s JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96 dated 28/02/2020). On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the admission of additional ground at this stage and submitted that the issue would require factual verification which has not been done by any of the lower authorities. 8.2 Upon careful consideration of ratio of decisions as cited before us in support of admission of additional ground o…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 115/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.17/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kec International Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बनाम/ 463, Ceat Mahal Room No.568 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 030. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.115/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-5(1)(1) Kec International Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.568 463, Ceat Mahal Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Worli, Mumbai-400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5599-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta and AnujFor Respondent: S/Shri Akhtar Husain Ansari & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (199 ITR 351). The Ld. AR, pointed out that the issue, on merits, is covered in assessee’s favor by the recent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited V/s JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96 dated 28/02/2020). On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the admission of additional ground at this stage and submitted that the issue would require factual verification which has not been done by any of the lower authorities. 8.2 Upon careful consideration of ratio of decisions as cited before us in support of admission of additional ground o…

Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3892/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…ame is not covered under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. 42. Though this claim was not made before the lower authorities, but being a statutory claim, we admit the additional ground. 43. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji bench in the case of Sesa Goa 423 ITR 426 had the occasion to consider a similar issue and has held as under: “In relation to taxing statute, certain principles of interpretation are quite well settled. In New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Raval, 37 ITR 41 (Bom.), it is held that one safe and infallible principle, which is of guidance in these matters, is to read the w…

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…ame is not covered under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. 42. Though this claim was not made before the lower authorities, but being a statutory claim, we admit the additional ground. 43. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji bench in the case of Sesa Goa 423 ITR 426 had the occasion to consider a similar issue and has held as under: “In relation to taxing statute, certain principles of interpretation are quite well settled. In New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Raval, 37 ITR 41 (Bom.), it is held that one safe and infallible principle, which is of guidance in these matters, is to read the w…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

ITA 794/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

For Appellant: with Sh. Manish Kumar KanthFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 40Section 90Section 90(1)(a)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vertual Court No. III IT(TP)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 for AY 2008-09 IT(TP) No. 794/Mum/2018 For AY 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs DCIT ltd.,9th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29th Floor, WTC, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade PAN AAACR4849R Mumbai- 05. APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT IT(TP)A No. 3746/Mum2016 for AY 2008-09 IT(TP)A No. 1207/Mum2018 for AY 2010-11 DCIT Vs Tata Consultancy Services ltd.,9th Floor, Nirmal Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29th Floor, WTC, Cufee…

Thomson Press India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2561/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Thomson Press India Ltd. Vs. Acit 9, K-Block, Special Range – 9, Cannaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan No. Aaact 4827 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Sailesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21/07/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 33, [‘Cit(A)’] New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under: M/S. Thomson Press (India) Ltd. A.Y. 2007-08 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Which Is Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Commercial Printing & Photo Typesetting. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2007-08 On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,65,29,535/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Initially The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2009 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.18,91,41,620/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148, Which Was Issued & Served To The Assessee On 20.03.2012. Consequently, The Case Was Taken For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 148 Vide Order Dated 22.03.2013 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.20,11,00,353/-. Aggrieved By The Order Of Ao, Assessee Carried The Matter Before The Cit(A) Who Vide Order Dated 16.01.2017 In Appeal No.96/15-16 Granted Partial Relief To The Assessee. Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A), Assessee Is Now Before Us & Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Thomson Press India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 9, K-Block, Special Range – 9, Cannaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. PAN No. AAACT 4827 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Sailesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 21/07/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 27/07/2020 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the…