What is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. authority for?

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

How many judgments cite Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.?

541 judgments on BharatTax cite Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 80P(2)(d), Section 143(3), Section 80P(4), Section 80P(2)(a)(i), Section 263, Section 143(1).

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11)

M/S. Mumbai Kolsa Kamgar Sahakari Society, Mumbai vs. The ITO 17(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 720/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. [1983] 15 Taxman 594/[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 187/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80p

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Ho…

Nilesh Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5), Raipur

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

ITA 116/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.116/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Nilesh Kumar Agrawal, Prop. M/S. Friends Construction, House No.107-108, Opp. Ravi Shankar, University Gate, Amanaka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 010 Pan : Afcpa2198G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. N Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 80C

…d not income from the property. In the backdrop of the conflict between the decisions of the aforesaid non-jurisdictional High Courts, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), the view which is in favour of the assessee has to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Guja…

Karishma Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1 & 2/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Karishma Co-Op Housing Pr.Commissioner Of Income Society Ltd., Vs Tax-2, Pune. Near Sangam Press, Karve . Road, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aaaak 9772 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For The A.Y.2016-17 & 2017- 18 Arise Against The Pr.Cit-2, Pune’S Separate Orders, Passed In Case No.Pn/Pcit-2/263/2020-21/1084, Pn/Pcit-2/263/2020-21/1085, Both Dated 10.12.2020, Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80B(2)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Karishma Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1 & 2/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Karishma Co-Op Housing Pr.Commissioner Of Income Society Ltd., Vs Tax-2, Pune. Near Sangam Press, Karve . Road, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aaaak 9772 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For The A.Y.2016-17 & 2017- 18 Arise Against The Pr.Cit-2, Pune’S Separate Orders, Passed In Case No.Pn/Pcit-2/263/2020-21/1084, Pn/Pcit-2/263/2020-21/1085, Both Dated 10.12.2020, Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80B(2)(ii)Section 80P(2)(d)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

El Cid Co .Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2266/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Chedda, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 5(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

…iety on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial Hon‟ble pronouncement of the High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

M/S.Nlc Indcoserve, Cuddalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Cuddalore

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

ITA 900/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 72Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(vi)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Sea Flama(Dosti Flamingos) Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) -1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor P. ChoudhariFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Tiwari

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non- jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow ITA. No. 2317 to 2320/Mum/…

Tulsiani Chambers Premises Cooperative Society Ltd, Nariman Point vs. WD 17(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2459/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 234BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…iety on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Co-Op Association Ltd, Belgaum vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Belgavi

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

ITA 102/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 102/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Co-Operative Association Ltd. Khanapur Road, Udyambag, Belgaum-590 008. Pan : Aaaat4615M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Belagavi. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Halbhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

…ty on its investments held with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

The Markandey Mahila Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Ltd, Belgaum vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Belgaum

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

ITA 372/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 372/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Markendey Mahila Multipurpose Co-Op Society Ltd.,12, At Post-Kangrail-Khurd, Taluka & Dist. Belgaum. Pan : Aabam5563C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Belgaum ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…ty on its investments held with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), ITA No. 372/PAN/2017 10 The Markandey Mahila Multipurpose Co-op Society Ltd. Vs. ITO where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement…

Mystique Rose Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -22(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1290/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non- 12 ITA. No. 1290/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction…

Sonmarg Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1334/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the ITA. N…

Nagothane Byapari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Raigarh vs. Pr. CIT-1, Thane

ITA 1011/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1011/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nagothane Vyapari Sahakari बिधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Vs. Bazerpeth Nagothane, Thane-1 Raigarh - 402106 Pan : Aaaan4367N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Kardam (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the 10 ITA. No. 1011/Mum/20…