Works Ltd. v. CIT 77 ITR 119 (SC), CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd. 71 ITR 345 (Mad.), CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd.

24 ITR 566High Court1953#24010 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing Works Ltd. v. CIT 77 ITR 119 (SC), CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd. 71 ITR 345 (Mad.), CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd.

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Kiran, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Candor Business Solutions P. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Unit C-2, Pentaabase, Ward 2(1)(1), No.5, Basappa Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN: AACCC 6166C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravish Rao, CA Respondent by : Shri D. Kiran, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 23.11.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2.…

M/S. THE ALCHEMISTS ARK PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 755/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.755/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…and held that the facts are comparable. Heavily relying on the judgment of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Dalal Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Subodh Chandra Poppatlal Vs. CIT 24 ITR 566 (Bom.) and others, AO treated the bonus of Rs.30 lakhs paid to the Directors is in the nature of dividend which is neither allowable u/s.36(1)(ii) nor u/s.37(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the said decision of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). This issue was discussed by the CIT(A) in para No.3.3 of his order and confirmed…

THE DCIT, (IT), CIR-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MICHEL BAU GMBH & CO. KG, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.395 & 396/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: None (Adjournment request rejected. )

…ving regard to the circumstances of the case. Some such decisions are in the cases of Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. v. CIT 77 ITR 119 (SC), CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd. 71 ITR 345 (Mad.), CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd.94 ITR 173 (Mad.), Subodhchandra Popatlal v. CIT 24 ITR 566 (Born.) etc. It is also not the case of the assessing officer, that the appellant and Atirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd are related in any manner or there is some non- business association or nexus between them. The assessing officer has, in his order, also observed that Atirath Commercial Pvt. Ltd had, after receiving agency commission from the appella…