Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Ariba Technologies India Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 15 June, 2023

Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt. Ltd, ... vs Assessee

28. Therefore, AO is duty bound to make the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act including the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ciba of India Ltd vs CIT 202 ITR 1, which was in fact decided in the context of ITAT's failure to issue directions. The CIT(A) appreciated the claim of the assessee and upheld the applicability of the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act, with which we agree. Now, we shall take up the procedural issues connected to the computation of the impugned capital gains and to examine if the CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the benefits of section 45(2) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Hinduja Foundries Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 October, 2025

In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIBA of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1993) 202 ITR 1 (Bom) for the proposition that the authorities and the Tribunal would be under duty to grant the alternate relief, when the relief claimed by the assessee is rejected for some reason. It is his further contention that the contributions made towards the development purposes, like roads and bridges, which are used for the business in which the assessee does not have a right of ownership, has to be treated as revenue _________ Page 24 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 05:14:41 pm ) TCA Nos.794 and 795 of 2016 and 798, 800, 801, 802 and 803 of 2018 expenditure.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.Aryama Sundaram vs The Commissioner Of on 17 December, 2025

40. It is however a fact that the rejection has not been challenged before the CIT(A). Mr.Datar submits that the powers of the Tribunal are plenary and wide. Referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay V. Gordhandas Bhanji1, of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Madras V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.2 and of the Bombay High Court in Ciba of India Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-Tax 3, he argues that there is a duty cast upon the Tribunal to make a proper determination of the tax arising in a particular case.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

Mr Popatrao Dashrathrao ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune, ... on 21 January, 2026

16. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd reported in 66 ITR 710 (SC) and the decision of 10 ITA No.234/PUN/2024 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ciba of India Ltd vs. CIT reported in 70 Taxman 505 (Bom), he submitted that the assessee can raise an alternate plea / ground before the Tribunal even if not raised earlier.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sova,Panaji vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji on 10 March, 2026

In directing the Revenue to allow consequential depreciation on capitalisation of 'stamp duty' as 'license' an intangible asset we place our reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of 'Ciba of India Ltd. Vs CIT' [1993, 202 ITR 1 (Bom)]. The concern of the appellant about the para 8 of the impugned order stands answered accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1