← All Phrases

“Section 75(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 75Section 75(1)9 judgments

BESTLINE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

ITA 3500/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2009-10
Section 148Section 68

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nMS PADMAVATHY

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009
For Appellant: \nShri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

s/AO's, which fact is\ndiscernable from placed at page 4 to 11 of PB. Assessee company has\nfiled Form-2 as per section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Return\nof allotment) which is statutory document filed before the Registrar of\nCompanies, a copy of which is found

M/S. THIRUMAGAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,DHARMAPURI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HOSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3243/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

shares be shown as asset in the balance 10 I.T.A. Nos.2913/Chny/18 & 3243/Chny/19 sheet of the company. The A.O. further held that as per section 75(1) of companies Act, 1956 the shares of the company can be allotted either for cash or for consideration other than cash. Before

THIRUMAGAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,HARUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , HOSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2913/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

shares be shown as asset in the balance 10 I.T.A. Nos.2913/Chny/18 & 3243/Chny/19 sheet of the company. The A.O. further held that as per section 75(1) of companies Act, 1956 the shares of the company can be allotted either for cash or for consideration other than cash. Before

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BLA POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Mahesh Akhade
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 75(1)

basis of submission filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings, when in fact copies of Form 2 submitted to ROC in pursuance of Section 75(1) of the Companies Act 1956, filed before the AO by letter dated OS.09.2OJ7 by assessee, show that M/s. BLA Power Holding

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AEGIS BPO SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3020/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Padamapani Bora, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Patawari, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 68

Mauritius towards share subscription, copy of joint venture agreement dated 28.03.2003, copy of acknowledged return of allotment (Form No. 2) filed pursuant to section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, copy of letter dated 21.07.2004 issued by Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department, New Delhi granting approval

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 284/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

investors. k) Copy of return of allotments (of shares) filed by the assessee company with the ROC in Form 2 (Pursuant to section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956). l) Copies ofMCA21: Company Master Details and company/LLP Master Data of all the investing companies as obtained from the site ... investors, k) Copy of return of allotments (of shares) filed by the assessee company with the ROC in Form 2 (Pursuant to section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956). l) Copies of MCA21: Company Master Details and company/LLP Master Data of all the investing companies as obtained from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 283/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 68

investors. k) Copy of return of allotments (of shares) filed by the assessee company with the ROC in Form 2 (Pursuant to section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956). l) Copies ofMCA21: Company Master Details and company/LLP Master Data of all the investing companies as obtained from the site ... investors, k) Copy of return of allotments (of shares) filed by the assessee company with the ROC in Form 2 (Pursuant to section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956). l) Copies of MCA21: Company Master Details and company/LLP Master Data of all the investing companies as obtained from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ELTEK SGS P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 643 / 2007HC Delhi19 Feb 2008
Section 260Section 80

export goods out of raw material that is imported and on which customs duty is paid. The entitlement for duty drawback arises from Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the relevant notification issued by the Central Government in that regard. 23. Learned counsel for the Revenue