Sevugan Chettiar v. PCIT, Chennai

392 ITR 63Reported decision2017#17822 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 10(10c)section 80j(6a)section 10basection 170section 80a(5)section 80jtransferor companyscheme of arrangementsection 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitysection 119(2)deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing Sevugan Chettiar v. PCIT, Chennai

ACIT(CC)-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2683/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2683/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit(Cc)-6(4) बिधम/ Indiabulls Housing Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Finance Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman M-62 & 63 1St Floor, Point, Mumbai-400021. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci3612A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2683/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) ACIT(CC)-6(4) बिधम/ Indiabulls Housing Room No. 1925, 19th Floor, Finance Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman M-62 & 63 1st Floor, Point, Mumbai-400021. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCI3612A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. Gopal Revenue by: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva (CIT-DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 13/11/2023 घोषणा…

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

…A. Y. 2016-2017 before the due date of 31.03.2018, since the NCLT had passed the last orders granting approval and sanction of the Schemes only on 22.04.2018 and 01.05.2018.” 2. High Court of Madras in the case of S. Sevugan Chettiar vs. PCIT, Chennai, [2017] 392 ITR 63. Observation of the Hon’ble court as per paras 11, 12 & 13 is as under: “11. Admittedly, the case, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to an individual employee namely S. Palaniappan, who was also a similarly placed person as that of the petitioner. Thus, the Board, in its wisdom, while implementing the judgement in the case…

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

…A. Y. 2016-2017 before the due date of 31.03.2018, since the NCLT had passed the last orders granting approval and sanction of the Schemes only on 22.04.2018 and 01.05.2018.” 2. High Court of Madras in the case of S. Sevugan Chettiar vs. PCIT, Chennai, [2017] 392 ITR 63. Observation of the Hon’ble court as per paras 11, 12 & 13 is as under: “11. Admittedly, the case, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to an individual employee namely S. Palaniappan, who was also a similarly placed person as that of the petitioner. Thus, the Board, in its wisdom, while implementing the judgement in the case…

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

…A. Y. 2016-2017 before the due date of 31.03.2018, since the NCLT had passed the last orders granting approval and sanction of the Schemes only on 22.04.2018 and 01.05.2018.” 2. High Court of Madras in the case of S. Sevugan Chettiar vs. PCIT, Chennai, [2017] 392 ITR 63. Observation of the Hon’ble court as per paras 11, 12 & 13 is as under: “11. Admittedly, the case, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to an individual employee namely S. Palaniappan, who was also a similarly placed person as that of the petitioner. Thus, the Board, in its wisdom, while implementing the judgement in the case…

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

…A. Y. 2016-2017 before the due date of 31.03.2018, since the NCLT had passed the last orders granting approval and sanction of the Schemes only on 22.04.2018 and 01.05.2018.” 2. High Court of Madras in the case of S. Sevugan Chettiar vs. PCIT, Chennai, [2017] 392 ITR 63. Observation of the Hon’ble court as per paras 11, 12 & 13 is as under: “11. Admittedly, the case, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to an individual employee namely S. Palaniappan, who was also a similarly placed person as that of the petitioner. Thus, the Board, in its wisdom, while implementing the judgement in the case…

Sevugan Chettiar v. PCIT, Chennai (392 ITR 63) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax