← All Phrases

“Section 3(1)(0)”

Section References (mined)Section 3Section 3(1)(0)7 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 3(1)(0) is 0 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. v. CIT (122 ITR 168), cited in 15 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 3(1)(0)

0 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) Assam Company (India) Ltd. v. CIT
122 ITR 168 · 1980 · High Court
15
citing judgments

An assessing officer is duty-bound to compute the income of an assessee in accordance with the law, irrespective of any admission made by the assessee. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine taxable income as per the Act.

Judgments citing Section 3(1)(0)

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1843/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

hereinafter referred to as the 'SIC Act') and at the hearing held on 23.04.1988, it was declared as a Sick Industrial Company under Section 3(1)(0) of the SIC Act. And the BIFR by ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1842/CHNY/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

hereinafter referred to as the 'SIC Act') and at the hearing held on 23.04.1988, it was declared as a Sick Industrial Company under Section 3(1)(0) of the SIC Act. And the BIFR by ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1841/CHNY/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

hereinafter referred to as the 'SIC Act') and at the hearing held on 23.04.1988, it was declared as a Sick Industrial Company under Section 3(1)(0) of the SIC Act. And the BIFR by ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto

Mafatlal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4369/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

trading of textiles. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had declared the Company, a sick industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 19.09.2000. It sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the Company on 30.10.2002, issued

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

trading of textiles. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had declared the Company, a sick industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 19.09.2000. It sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the Company on 30.10.2002, issued

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

trading of textiles. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had declared the Company, a sick industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 19.09.2000. It sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the Company on 30.10.2002, issued

Perfect Thread Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Department by Shri Mehul Jain

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND