← All Phrases

“Section 37(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(1)4,308 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments citing Section 37(1)

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2889/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80J

decide on the appeal in accordance with the law.” 26. Deduction in respect of education cess and secondary higher education cess under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') 26.1. Based on facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that education ... cess and secondary higher education cess on income tax for the year under consideration ought to be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act while computing the total income. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other

Dy.CIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Citra Properties Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 100/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Citra Properties Ltd., M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Connaught Place, Room No.1925, Vs. New Delhi – 110001 19Th Floor, Pan: Aadcc 0776B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojiya, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 245D(4)Section 68

liability was not deductible in computing the assessee's income under the head 'Other sources". On a comparison of the language of section 37(1) and section 57( Hi), it becomes clear that the scope of the former section is essentially wider than that of the latter. The word 'business ... used in section 37(1) in association with the expression "for the purposes of" is a word of wide connotation. In the context of a taxing statute, the word 'business' would signify an organised and continuous course of commercial activity, which is carried on with the end in view

Asstt CIT - 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. General Atlantic P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-5(1)(1), Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd., Level 19, Birla Auror, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400030. Pan: Aabcg7917Q ..... Respondent Appellant By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Sh. Porus Kaka/Divesh Chawla Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka/Divesh Chawla
Section 133(6)

following is submitted: “9. In this regard, the appellant would like to draw your Honour’s kind attention to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act which provide that expenditure should be allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains ... wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and were revenue in nature, the same should be allowed as deductible expenses under section 37(1) of the Act 26 ITA No. 1270/Mum/2021- M/s General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd. 15. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the appellant submits that

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

disallowed in the return of income) without appreciating that the said expenses are incurred for business purposes of the Assessee and allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Disallowance of amount paid under the head Seminar and Conference expenses 22. erred in disallowing an amount ... incurred for LO in Srilanka without appreciating that the same was incurred for business purposes of the Assessee and allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 27. erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating that

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

disallowed in the return of income) without appreciating that the said expenses are incurred for business purposes of the Assessee and allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Disallowance of amount paid under the head Seminar and Conference expenses 22. erred in disallowing an amount ... incurred for LO in Srilanka without appreciating that the same was incurred for business purposes of the Assessee and allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 27. erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating that

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly as indicated herein above

ITA 220/BANG/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S Praxair India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2839/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT

ACIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3864/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

expenditure continues to be a revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business of the Appellant and hence would be allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, it is clear that liability of bank in respect to Perpetual Bonds is totally different from

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

expenditure continues to be a revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business of the Appellant and hence would be allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, it is clear that liability of bank in respect to Perpetual Bonds is totally different from

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1479/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assistant

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assistant

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

loss suffered by the assessee on account of forest derivatives as on the date of balance-sheet is an item of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering this issue observed that the expression “any expenditure” has been used in section 37

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

India Pistons Ltd [2001] 119 Taxman 384 was directly concerned with allowability of interest paid for delayed remittance of customs duty under section 37(1). Applicability of section 43B in the said case was not an issue at all. In Shri Pipes v DCIT 289 ITR 154 (Rajasthan) interest accrued