Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Acit 19(3), Mumbai vs Sachin R. Tendulkar, Mumbai on 25 January, 2017

The Acit, Circle 2(1), Indore vs Dr. Shri Rajeev Chaudhary, Indore on 10 January, 2019

29. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench Mumbai referred above we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance was called for u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 2,15,542/- by the assessing officer. We therefore, set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of Rs.2,15,542/- made by the assessing officer byway invoking provision of section 14A of the Act. Thus, ground no.2 of the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,,New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 8 October, 2025

Ltd. vs. ACIT: 204 ITD 146 (Del ITAT) - AY 2015-16  ACIT vs. Sachin R. Tendulkar: 163 ITD 65 (Mum ITAT) - AY 2010-11 and 2011-12  Smt. Yamini Khandelwal vs. ACIT: 197 ITD 520 (Kol ITAT) - AY 2010-11  Chandan Infratech Ltd. vs. ITO: 145 taxmann.com 136 (Ahd ITAT) - AY 2011-12 Further, para 3 of the letter dated 02.05.2016 carves out the situation in which the said Circular would not be applicable. None of the situations mentioned in 45 para 3 of the aforesaid Circular are applicable in the present facts in as much as -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi on 8 October, 2025

Ltd. vs. ACIT: 204 ITD 146 (Del ITAT) - AY 2015-16  ACIT vs. Sachin R. Tendulkar: 163 ITD 65 (Mum ITAT) - AY 2010-11 and 2011-12  Smt. Yamini Khandelwal vs. ACIT: 197 ITD 520 (Kol ITAT) - AY 2010-11  Chandan Infratech Ltd. vs. ITO: 145 taxmann.com 136 (Ahd ITAT) - AY 2011-12 Further, para 3 of the letter dated 02.05.2016 carves out the situation in which the said Circular would not be applicable. None of the situations mentioned in 45 para 3 of the aforesaid Circular are applicable in the present facts in as much as -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok C Pratap, Mumbai vs Addl Cit 16(2), Mumbai on 8 March, 2019

Hence, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Sachin R. Tendulkar (supra) we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Since, we have allowed the main ground of appeal of the assessee, we do not deem it necessary to decide the alternative ground taken without prejudice to the main ground.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pentagon Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 5(2)(4), Mumbai on 31 May, 2017

7.1. Regarding the decision in Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah (supra) and Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar (supra), we may say that the issue whether the nature of transaction of purchase and sale of share is investment or trading is purely a finding of facts. Therefore, each case involving a question of fact has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. It is not to be decided on the basis of finding of facts in another case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1