Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cir 7(2)(2), Mumbai on 26 October, 2018

The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs M/S. Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., ... on 25 August, 2023

In the second type of provisions, the portion/head of expenses are ascertained but the actual value of the expenses are estimated. The assessee regularly follows the procedure of creating provisions and suo moto disallows the expenditure which are excessive in the next assessment year. The historical data shows that the assessee makes the adjustment every year which are in the range of 7-8% and it consistently follows the same and if there is short, it accounts the same in the with next assessment year. It will have tax neutral effect considering the fact that the same rate of tax are applicable. We observe that in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. ... vs Acit,Central Circle, Sambalpur, ... on 16 December, 2024

The decision of the Coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Novartis (supra) is also applicable insofar as the assessment in the present case was completed as earlier as in 2014 and after nearly 8 years, the assessee has taken up to challenge the jurisdiction to a Superior Officer functioning from the same Range and same location. This being so, the issue of technicality is held against the assessee. Al the additional grounds of appeal taken are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs M/S. Small Industries Development Bank ... on 22 August, 2023

Several reminders letters were also addressed to the Assessing Officer. However, the learned Assessing Officer is required to pass an order under section 154 of the Act within a period of six months from the end of the month in which application was made. But the learned Assessing Officer did not Page | 3 ITA No. 1813/Mum/2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India; A.Y. 07-08 pass any order of rectification either accepting or refusing the claim of the assessee and therefore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) seeking the above relief. The learned CIT (A) after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd in 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Novartis India Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1249/Mum/2010 dated 18th March, 2011 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CITI bank Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 dated 17th July, 2003 held that assessee is entitled for interest up to the date when the Pay Order is actually received by the assessee pursuant to the order sanctioning the refund. Even, in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 in ITA No. 3707/Mum/2012 dated 15th September, 2017 identical directions were given. In view of all those judgments the learned CIT (A) held that he finds merit in the claim of the assessee by holding that interest under section 244A of the Act is to be allowed up to the date of receipt of refund order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1