Sundaram Finance Limited v. ACIT

349 ITR 356High Court2012#13198 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 194HSection 2(19AA)Section 28(iv)Section 35ABBSection 35DDSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 40(a)(1)interest under section 201(1a)percentage completion methodsection 194jemployees contribution to pfsection 10(34)section 21computer softwareprofits and gains of business or professionsection 40(a)(i)section 201(1a)

Judgments citing Sundaram Finance Limited v. ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…ted 24/06/2013) • ITO vs. M/s. Kyal Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 627/Kol/2012)  Aamby Valley Ltd. vs. ACIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi - Trib.)  Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 165 ITD 563 (Chennai - Trib.)  CIT vs. Areva T&D India Ltd. [2021] 434 ITR 604 (Madras HC) 14. He submitted that in the aforesaid judgments it has been held that any reserve created under a scheme of amalgamation is a capital receipt and thus not covered u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. This principle clearly applies to any scheme including scheme of demerger and further, whether a merger/demerger is qualifying or not will not alte…

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…ted 24/06/2013) • ITO vs. M/s. Kyal Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 627/Kol/2012)  Aamby Valley Ltd. vs. ACIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi - Trib.)  Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 165 ITD 563 (Chennai - Trib.)  CIT vs. Areva T&D India Ltd. [2021] 434 ITR 604 (Madras HC) 14. He submitted that in the aforesaid judgments it has been held that any reserve created under a scheme of amalgamation is a capital receipt and thus not covered u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. This principle clearly applies to any scheme including scheme of demerger and further, whether a merger/demerger is qualifying or not will not alte…

ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BEACON HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 154Section 2Section 32(1)(ii)

…the same allowable as revenue expenditure. 3 Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt. Ltd. 8. On the other hand, the ld. AR relied on the following case laws:  CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. 227 Taxman 176 (Kar.)  CIT Vs. Areva T&D India Ltd. 434 ITR 604 (Mad. HC)  CIT Vs. Ferromatic Milacron India (P.) Ltd. 99 Taxman 154 (Guj.)  Dodrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. DCIT 230 Taxman 633 (Bom.)  Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. Vs. DCIT 222 Taxman 209 (Mad.)  PCIT Vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. in ITA No. 556 of 2017 (Bom.)  PCIT Vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd. 247 Taxman 397 (Guj.) 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the…

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…lso collected during the year". 3. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Maintenance Advance received for being taxed in respective assessment years ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs. ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 356". 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds mentioned above.” ITA No. 45/Bang/2…

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…lso collected during the year". 3. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Maintenance Advance received for being taxed in respective assessment years ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs. ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 356". 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds mentioned above.” ITA No. 45/Bang/2…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…lso collected during the year". 3. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Maintenance Advance received for being taxed in respective assessment years ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs. ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 356". 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds mentioned above.” ITA No. 45/Bang/2…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -I, KOLKATA vs. VIPER ESTATES & INVESTMENT (P) LTD.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA/67/2012HC Calcutta18 Jan 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S.Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : January 18, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Advocate …For Appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Advocate Mr. Avra Mazumder, Advocate …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 890/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 15Th June, 2012 To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:-

Section 260ASection 263Section 28

…e assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC). This decision was referred in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax (LTU) v. Areva T & D India Ltd.[2021] 434 ITR 604 (Mad). The operative portion of the judgement read as follows:- “18. Substantial question of law Nos.3 and 4 are connected as the question is as to whether the net book value of the entity taken over by the assessee over and above the consideration paid for acquiring three 3 companies would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section…

DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SVC CO. OP. BANK LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3614/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Waghle- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) which it had not claimed in its return of income relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Prithvi Brokers and Shares Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 356(Bom) when the same was not accepted by Department on merits and against which no further appeal was filed only due to low tax effect. As evident from grounds of appeal, the revenue is aggrieved by the fact that deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) has been allowed to the assessee which was not claimed as per return of income and was revised during the cours…

Sundaram Finance Limited v. ACIT (349 ITR 356) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax