How many judgments cite Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT?

209 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT (108 ITR 345), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132, Section 148, Section 5, Section 4.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT

108 ITR 345Supreme Court of India1977#430 most cited

What is Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT authority for?

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

209

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT · 108 ITR 345 SC · strict interpretation taxing statutes · no purposive interpretation direct tax laws · legislative intent no omission · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 5 · Section 4 · Section 6 · Section 139(1) · Income Tax Act interpretation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 132 Section 148 Section 5 Section 4 Section 6 Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

accumulated profits deemed dividend section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)mercantile system of accounting book profits commercial expediency liable to tax disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a non-resident section 40(a)

Judgments citing Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. Sh. R.K. Garg, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1191/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol

Section 139Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 The DCIT Vs. Sh. R.K. Garg, Central Circle-II SCO 49-50, Sector-26 Chandigarh Chandigarh PAN No. ABYPG9179M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar Revenue By : Sh. Ashish Abrol Date of hearing : 01/02/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 01/05/2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 18/05/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue h…

Zakaulla Siddqui, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui Asst. Commissioner Of A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Income-Tax, Central Vs. House, Napean Sea Road, Circle-47, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 A.C.I.T.-Cc-8(4) Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. House, Napean Sea Road, Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…s 2(22)(e) postulated two factors : (i) whether the payment was a loan and (ii) whether on the date of payment there existed accumulated profits. These two factors had to be co-related. In Tarulata Shyam v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 485, 494 (Cal), affirmed in (1997) 108 ITR 345 (SC), again the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that u/s 2(22)(e), the liability to tax attaches to any amount taken as a loan by a shareholder from a closely-held company at the moment the loan is borrowed and it is immaterial whether the loan is repaid before the end of the accounting year or not . Again in Miss P. Sarada v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 444,…

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Nalin ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Dr. Divya KJ

Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…IT(A), the assessee had reiterated the submissions as made before the AO. After considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam Vs. CIT, 108 ITR 345 and in the case of P. Sarada Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 444 (SC). 5. Aggrieved with the above order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 23

…to the language used and resort to any rule of interpretation to unfold the intention is permissible only where the language is ambiguous. There are a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court which support this proposition namely; • Smt. Tarulata Shyam Vs CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) • Keshavji Ravji Vs CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 • Guru Devdata VKSSS Maryadit Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1980. • CIT Vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 • Prakash Nath Khanna and Anr Vs CIT & Anr 266 ITR 1. The above judgments make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that Courts are not required to look into the object or intention of th…

Bt E- Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 565/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrandra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…/2016 A Y 2011-12 21. the learned AO / DRP have erred by failing to uphold the principle of Casus Omissus as laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu (255 ITR 147) (SC) and Tarulata Shyam (Smt) Vs. Commissioner of Income- tax (108 ITR 345) (SC) 22. without prejudice, the learned AO / DRP have erred by failing to consider that where exemption of Section 10AA of the Act is denied during AY 2010-11, the assessee will not be able to claim the said exemption during any succeeding AY in absence of any such express provision under the Act resulting in gross injustice to the assessee 23.…

Cai Industries P. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 356/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Dcit, M/S. Cai Industries P Ltd., 1547-A, Avinashi Road, Corporate Circle – 2, Peelamedu, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 004. Pan: Aabcc2146F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 01.08.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

…Automotive Private Limited which clearly come within the meaning of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thereafter the Ld.AO placed reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Tarulata Shyam and others vs. CIT reported in 108 ITR 345, wherein it was held “payment by a company not being a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of Section 23A of 1922 Act, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, not exceeding the accumulated profits possessed by the company was to be deemed as his dividend u/s 2(6A)(e) read with section 12(1B…

Sh. Gautam R Chadha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5450/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Navin Chandra, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…particular is commercially being referred to or sold by a different name, it is not covered under the said item / entry i.e. “computers”, and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam and Ors. vs. CIT – (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC). 11. However, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. (supra) set the controversy at rest by allowing the depreciation of computer accessories and peripherals, such as, printers, scanners and server etc. forming integral part of the computer system without which computer cannot be used by making following observation…

Bharat Bir Mohindra, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 462/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 462/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gangadhara Sastry, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…deeming !provisions of sec.2(22)(e) for commercial transactions. As regards the assessees first argument regarding repayments not being taken into consideration, he relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345. The repayment of loan or advance during the year or subsequently ITA No.462/Mds/2013. :- 6 -: does not affect the deeming provisions of sec.2(22)(e). The assessee's argument that dividend distribution tax was not taken into consideration does not have any force as the said tax was not into existence at all when the sec.2(22)(e) corresponding…

Hcl Technologies Bpo Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5622/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Navin Chandra, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

Ravi Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 130/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)

Section 148Section 2

…ssee: when the right to receive the income becomes vested in the assessee, it is said to accrue or arise.” 4.9 Reliance was also placed on the following decisions to explain the meaning of word “receipt or received”: (a) CIT vs. Dharamdas Hargovandas (1961) 42 ITR 427 (SC): The words ‘is received’ are not terms of art and their meaning must receive colour from the context in which they are used. In the context of section 5(1)(a), these words only refer to the first receipt. (b) CIT. Vs. Govind Prasad Prasbhu Nath (1988) 35 Taxman 513/171 ITR 417 (All): Neither, the word “income” nor the words ‘is received’, ‘…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…cial interpretation :- - Orissa State Warehousing Corporation -vs.- CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC 22 23 M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. A.Yr.2007-08 - Prakash Nath Khanna and Another -vs.- CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Othrs -vs.- CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu: 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that additional depreciation would be allowed in the FY in which the P&M is used for the first time and those provisions are not made with retrospective effect. It was argued that the legislatu…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Tulsiani Builders & Textiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4315/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Singh & Ms. Apurva ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Nitin Waghmode

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…ng the fact that the advances from received from Amline Textile Pvt. Ltd. which is a 100% subsidiary of the Assessment Year: 2008-09 assessee company and hence in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT(1977) 108 ITR 345, section 2(22)(e) is squarely applicable to the assessee’s case.” 2. Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules holding that the assessee’s own capitals and reserves and surplus were more than the investments made. The assessee has failed to prove that the inve…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

…ne must regard the letter of the law strictly and not go by what is inferred as the spirit of the statute or the substance of law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sodra Devi: 32 ITR 615 (SC) ii. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT: 108 ITR 345 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Sundaram Iyengar& Sons Pvt. Ltd: 101 ITR 764 (SC) iv. Keshavji Ravji & Co vs. CIT: 183 ITR 1 (SC) c) It may, in this regard, also be pertinent to note that Rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") provides for time and mode of payment of TDS to the Government. A cursory reading of the rule shows that it only covers si…

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…Hence, in the absence it is unfair and disingenuous to treat the letter of HS SGT dated 11th Dec., 2000 as “unauthorized in law”. 8.10 At para-34 the learned Pr. CIT has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT, 108 ITR 345. The learned Pr. CIT has relied on the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgement:- It is urged that the principle in the last limb of sub- section (1) of section 108 of the Commonwealth Act should also be read into the Indian statute. It is maintained that the omission of such words from sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(…

Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 671/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr CounselFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I

Section 154Section 92C(2)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tion, it (brought forward loss) would be reduced, otherwise unabsorbed depreciation would be reduced. The interpretation taken by the assessee is against the ration of Hon'ble SC laid down in case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam and Others V s. CIT, West Bengal [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) which stated as under, " ... There is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be, not to construe, but to amend the statute. Even if 10 I.T.A.NO.2673/Del/2011 there be a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. To us, there appears no…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gardenia Shelters (P) Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

ITA 612/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C S Agarwal, Sr. Adv

Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194J

…vs ITO. (2012) 24 taxmann.com 48 (Chennai), wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that TDS is deductible in such cases. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam and others vs CIT, West Bengal (1997) 108 ITR 345 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble court held as under: " ……in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, 12 I.T.A.N612./Del/2013 C.O. No.161/Del/2013 nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha

Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…to a colleague of theirs, are unfairly dealt with by the impugned provision.’ (pg. 210) (emphasis, ours) It was also clarified that the condition of accumulated profits would be as on the date of the loan or advance (pg.202). In Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC), it was sought to be argued that the fiction of the provision extended only to a loan or advance that remains outstanding as at the end of the previous year in which the same was taken. The incongruity of the provision was sought to emphasized with reference to sub- clause (iii) of section 2(6A)(e) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to section 2…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3197/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavai.T.A. No. 3197/Del/2013 Ay: 2009-10 Global Heritage Venture Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As M/S Krishna Central Circle-12, Buildwell & Developers Pvt. Ltd.), Ara Centre, 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aacck9842K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Sudesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2016

For Appellant: Mr. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3197/Del/2013 AY: 2009-10 Global Heritage Venture Ltd., vs DCIT, (Formerly known as M/s Krishna Central Circle-12, Buildwell & Developers Pvt. Ltd.), ARA Centre, 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AACCK9842K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Mr. Sudesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR Date of hearing: 06.04.2016 Date of pronouncement: 21.06.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTA…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 56 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No. 2618/Mum/2014 Assessment years: 2009-10 Siro Clinpharm Private Limited ……….………………….Appellant 63, Lady Ratan Tata Medical and Research Centre M K Road, Cooperage, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAECS8588A] Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……..…………….…Respondent Range 3 (3)(1), Mumbai I.T.A. Nos. 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment years: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 3 (3)(1), Mumbai ……….………………….Appellant Vs. Siro Clinpharm Private Li…