← All Phrases

“Section 42(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 42Section 42(1)16 judgments

RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 242/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 69rSection 80C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (INDIA) LTD., DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2134/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 42(1)Section 42(1)(b)Section 44C

show that he 2 BG Exploration & Production (India) Ltd. has entered into an agreement with the Central govt. of the nature mentioned in section 42(1) of the Act and that, under the agreement, he has been authorized to incur certain expenditure and those expenditures fall within wither clause ... clause (b) or clause (c) of section 42(1) of the Act." (ii) Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that only the expenses as approved by the "Joint Operating Board" of concerned PSC could be eligible

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

employees. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in Bharat Earth Movers and Metal Box Company to support its view.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 42(1)(a)", "Section 32(1)(iia)", "Section 37(1)", "Section 14A", "Section 40A(9)", "Section 43B(f)", "Section 36(1)(vii)", "Section 36(2)", "Section

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

BRIDGESTONE INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELH, DELHI

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

ITA 1081/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bridgestone India P.Ltd Plot No-A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc Addl/Jt/Dy/Cit/Ito, National E- Chakan, Village Sawardari, Assessment Centre Vs. Taluka Khed, Delhi-110 003 Pune-410501 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcb2304E Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Adv Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 42(1)Section 43(1)

Ld.AO be directed to treat the amount of ₹ 33,22,87,820/- as a capital receipt and being covered by Explanation 10 to section 42(1) of the Act. 2. The Ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP erred in making an addition of ₹ 13,80,54,016/- (gross subsidy

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

respect of the unsuccessful exploration cost incurred in contract area other than KGD 6 has been made in computation of income under section 42(1)(a) against the entire income of the assessee company while computing the business income. Accordingly, it was submitted that the unsuccessful exploration cost

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

respect of the unsuccessful exploration cost incurred in contract area other than KGD 6 has been made in computation of income under section 42(1)(a) against the entire income of the assessee company while computing the business income. Accordingly, it was submitted that the unsuccessful exploration cost

DCIT (IT) 3(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 455/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 195Section 9

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

DCIT (IT) -3(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATION SERVICESAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2289/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143Section 195Section 9

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

DCIT (IT) -3(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2288/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143Section 195Section 9

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

DCIT (IT) -3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2286/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143Section 195Section 9

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

this Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01, by holding as under:- “14. After hearing both the parties and perusing the language of section 42(1)(b) of the Act, we observe that the language of section 42(1)(b) provides that deduction of any expenditure incurred by the assessee