1. CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd.

206 ITR 68High Court1996#19823 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd.

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed with above direction

ITA 7239/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishired Fort Shahjahan Properties Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-21(1), N-226, Lgf, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcr6247E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…ging any mala fides , collusion or financial soundness of the debtor, a resolution has been passed, during the relevant previous year itself, to waive interest, it cannot be said that any income has accrued to the assessee [CIT v. Mahavir Co. (P.) Ltd.,(1994) 206 ITR 68 (Raj) ]. Therefore on the analysis of the balance sheet it needs to be seen whether the debtor is financially sound or not in impugned case. The learned authorised representative has also produced the agreement 24. dated 14/02/2013 between the assessee and the borrower. In the agreement, it is noted that the borrower is engaged in the business of…

Dhanraj Mills P.Ltd, Palghar vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Thane

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in all the assessment years challenging additions made by the AO towards interest receivable from CIFCO group of companies, Excel & Co, VKSA

ITA 1255/MUM/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271

…rincipal itself is in default, the question of taxing interest on accrual basis is against the principles of law. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgements:- 1. CIT vs Elgi Finance Ltd (2007) 93 ITR 357 (Mad) 2. CIT vs M|ahavir Co P Ltd (1996) 206 ITR 68 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Del) 4. CIT vs Canfin Homes Ltd (2012) 347 ITR 382 (Kar) 5. M/s Greenland Finance & Leasing P Ltd vs ITO – ITA No.6166/Del/2012 14. The Ld.Standing Counsel appearing for revenue submitted that the assessee has been given enough time to substantiate his case with necessary evidences, b…

Dhanraj Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr-7, Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in all the assessment years challenging additions made by the AO towards interest receivable from CIFCO group of companies, Excel & Co, VKSA

ITA 1679/MUM/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271

…rincipal itself is in default, the question of taxing interest on accrual basis is against the principles of law. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgements:- 1. CIT vs Elgi Finance Ltd (2007) 93 ITR 357 (Mad) 2. CIT vs M|ahavir Co P Ltd (1996) 206 ITR 68 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Del) 4. CIT vs Canfin Homes Ltd (2012) 347 ITR 382 (Kar) 5. M/s Greenland Finance & Leasing P Ltd vs ITO – ITA No.6166/Del/2012 14. The Ld.Standing Counsel appearing for revenue submitted that the assessee has been given enough time to substantiate his case with necessary evidences, b…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Harshvardhan Land Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 582/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Vrindera Mehta (CIT)
Section 138Section 153A

…g decisions. • CIT Vs. shoorji Vallabhadas & Company 46ITR 144 (SC) • Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT Vs. Excel Industries ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) • CIT Vs. Eastern Investment Ltd. 213 ITR 334 (Cal.)(HC) • CIT Vs. Mahavir Co. (P) Ltd. 206 ITR 68(Raj.)(HC) 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has entered into lease agreement with M/s R.L. Verma & Sons (HUF) dated 19.08.2009 whereby the assessee claimed to have taken on lease the property admeasuring 3650 sq. ft. DCIT vs. M/s Harshvardhan Land Ltd., Jaipur at 9th floor, Dr. Gopa…

1. CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd. (206 ITR 68) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax