Trib.) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. DY. CIT

130 TTJ 213Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#14835 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)(xv)section 10(2)section 139(5)mercantile system of accountingsection 115jsection 145revenue expendituresection 115jbsection 10section 115section 139section 80

Judgments citing Trib.) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. DY. CIT

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…(JP) of 2010); Shree Cement Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ (Jp.) 529); ACIT v. L. H., Sugar Factory Ltd. (ITA Nos. 417, 418, & 339/ LKW/2013) (Lucknow ITAT); Dy. CIT v. Binani Industries Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 320) (Kol. - Trib.) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. DY. CIT (130 TTJ 213) (Vizag); and B & B Infotech Ltd. v. ITO (IT Appeal No. 726 (Bang.) of 2014). Based on the facts and the circumstances of the Appellant's case, the settled legal position referred to above, the objects and intent of the statutory provisions of the Act, it is humbly submitted that the subsidies in question should be treated as capital subsidy and…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…(JP) of 2010); Shree Cement Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ (Jp.) 529); ACIT v. L. H., Sugar Factory Ltd. (ITA Nos. 417, 418, & 339/ LKW/2013) (Lucknow ITAT); Dy. CIT v. Binani Industries Ltd. (82 taxmann.com 320) (Kol. - Trib.) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. DY. CIT (130 TTJ 213) (Vizag); and B & B Infotech Ltd. v. ITO (IT Appeal No. 726 (Bang.) of 2014). Based on the facts and the circumstances of the Appellant's case, the settled legal position referred to above, the objects and intent of the statutory provisions of the Act, it is humbly submitted that the subsidies in question should be treated as capital subsidy and…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs. ACIT 34, Community Centre, Circle-11(1) Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN - AAACH0812J Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Monisha Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Shri Surenderpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 13.04.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed against the assessment orde…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…the department in view of the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 597/116 Taxman 104 (Bom.) (ii) Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 119 ITD 355 (Mum.) (iii) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 130 TTJ 213 (Vizag) (iv) Duke Offshore Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 45 SOT 399/9 taxmann.com 214 (Mum.) (v) B & B Infotech Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 155 ITD 1040/63 taxmann.com 122 (Bang. - Trib.) His strong contention was that once the amount of waiver of loan is part of profit & loss account duly credited to the P&L account and also clarified by the auditor, then nei…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ed) is covered in favour of the department in view of the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Bom) ii) Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 121 TTJ 77(Mum) iii) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 213 (Vizag) iv) Duke Offshore Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 45 SOT 399 (Mum) v) B & B Infotech Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.726/Bang/2014) His strong contention was that once the amount of waiver of loan is part of profit & loss account duly credited to the P&L account and also clarified by the auditor, then neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee can tin…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ed) is covered in favour of the department in view of the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Bom) ii) Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 121 TTJ 77(Mum) iii) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 213 (Vizag) iv) Duke Offshore Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 45 SOT 399 (Mum) v) B & B Infotech Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.726/Bang/2014) His strong contention was that once the amount of waiver of loan is part of profit & loss account duly credited to the P&L account and also clarified by the auditor, then neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee can tin…

Trib.) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. DY. CIT (130 TTJ 213) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax