0 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT v. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd.

288 ITR 101High Court2007#17603 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)dividend distribution taxadditional depreciationsection 32section 37companysection 14section 143(3)total incomebusiness

Judgments citing 0 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT v. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd.

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

ITA 6484/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A(2)

…ic/Pathological Laboratory is engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing came up for the adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in the case of CIT vs Suresh Amin Family Trust-(2007) 158 taxman 105(Guj)/ (2007) 288 ITR 101 (Guj). The Hon'ble High Court after following the Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision in the case of CIT vs Peerless Consultancy and Services Private Limited (2001) 248 ITR 178 held that Suresh Amin Family Trust was running a pathological laboratories and such business activity could be taken to an industrial undertaking and such plant and machinery…

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

ITA 1547/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…nd there is been no disallowance on this account. Assessee also explained the provisions of Section 32 (1) (iia) of the act and relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Suresh Amin family trust (2007) 158 taxmann 105 Gujarat/288 ITR 101 (Gujarat). The assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in 81 taxman 109 (Ahd). Thus the assessee submitted that the claim of the assessee is also allowed in earlier years and there is been no case for any disallowance on this account. It was stated that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The l…

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

ITA 1546/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…nd there is been no disallowance on this account. Assessee also explained the provisions of Section 32 (1) (iia) of the act and relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Suresh Amin family trust (2007) 158 taxmann 105 Gujarat/288 ITR 101 (Gujarat). The assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in 81 taxman 109 (Ahd). Thus the assessee submitted that the claim of the assessee is also allowed in earlier years and there is been no case for any disallowance on this account. It was stated that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The l…

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1901/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

…ssee has to be accepted as an industrial undertaking A) ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT Vs. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd. 107 ITR 822 (MAD.) D) CIT Vs. Suresh Amin Family Trust 288 ITR 101 (Gujarat) 10. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble madras High Court rendered in the case of ACIT Vs. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. as reported in 171 TAXMAN 397. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce the provisions of sub…

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1900/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

…ssee has to be accepted as an industrial undertaking A) ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT Vs. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd. 107 ITR 822 (MAD.) D) CIT Vs. Suresh Amin Family Trust 288 ITR 101 (Gujarat) 10. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble madras High Court rendered in the case of ACIT Vs. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. as reported in 171 TAXMAN 397. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce the provisions of sub…

0 ITR 79 (SC) B) CIT v. Datacons (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 66 (Kar) C) CIT v. Commercial Laws of India (P.) Ltd. (288 ITR 101) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax