117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT v. D. Mandal

133 ITR 559High Court1982#11066 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT v. D. Mandal

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 472/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 471/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 470/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 312/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 310/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 309/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the repro…

Areva T & D Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

…he IT Act. 4.2. Having regard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Aries Advertising Co. Ltd. (255 ITR 510) wherein, it was observed that (quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. — (133 ITR 559) any amount transferred by the assessee to the General Reserve is treated as profits of the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing O…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Areva T & D India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 561/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

…he IT Act. 4.2. Having regard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Aries Advertising Co. Ltd. (255 ITR 510) wherein, it was observed that (quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. — (133 ITR 559) any amount transferred by the assessee to the General Reserve is treated as profits of the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing O…

117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT v. D. Mandal (133 ITR 559) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax