1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT

28 ITR 636High Court1955#20374 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT

VAAYA RENEWABLE ENERGY (PURNA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)`, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pillai v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 636 (Mad); g) CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd.,(1951) 19 ITR 558, 569-70 (Mad). Also see, Lachminarayan Modi v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 322 (Orissa); h) J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom); i) Mahabir Prasad & Sons v. CIT, (1945) 13 ITR 340 (Lah); j) Central India Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1943) 11 ITR 266 (Nag); k) C…

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pillai v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 636 (Mad); 9 Hiranandani Akruti JV g) CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd.,(1951) 19 ITR 558, 569-70 (Mad). Also see, Lachminarayan Modi v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 322 (Orissa); h) J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom); i) Mahabir Prasad & Sons v. CIT, (1945) 13 ITR 340 (Lah); j) Central India Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (19…

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MANAGED INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 566/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Managed Information Services Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd., “Pottipati” Plaza, 5Th Floor, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 034. No.77, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaccm 7680 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Murugaboopathy, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 37(1)

….counsel placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in CIT v. O.P.N. Arunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620, CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 558, State of Tamil Nadu v. C.H. Simpson (1992) 197 ITR 237 and G. Veerappa Pillai v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 636. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. From the material available on record it appears that the registered software of the assessee-company was used by other competing business concerns in United Kingdom. Therefore, the assessee was forced to initiate legal proceeding.…