140 ITR 286 (Cal.), Bijli Cotton Mill (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

99 ITR 111High Court1975#16333 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

Judgments citing 140 ITR 286 (Cal.), Bijli Cotton Mill (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…1974] 96 ITR 327 (Ker.), Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 853 (Kar.), CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 286 (Cal.), Bijli Cotton Mill (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 400 (All.) and Bhagwat Prasad & Co. v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 111 (All.). 4. The learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Indian Motor Transport Co. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 677. In our opinion, this decision of the Allahabad High Court cannot be construed as taking a 29 Saket Agarwal vs. ITO contrary view on account of the fact that this too is a decision by the…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NEW WORLD SYNTHETICS LIMITED,

ITA/806/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 41(1)

…or from enforcing the debt. This is the right and correct position in law as held by the Bombay High Court in Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 49 ITR 578 (Bom.) and Bhagwat Prasad and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 111 (All). In this context the ITA No. 806-2018 Page 6 of 7 admission and acknowledgement of the debt and liability by the respondent- assessee is significant and important. 11. The patent flaw in the argument raised by the Revenue is to ignore and overlook admission of liability to pay as the re…

NAYAN T. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Nayan T Shah, Dcit, Flat No.501, 5Th Floor, Circle-23(3), बनाम/ Rajyog Residency, (Now Dcit Circle-29(2), Vs. Near Vardhman Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Dr. R.P. Road, Bandra (East), Mulund (West), Mumbai Mumbai-400080 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aahps3290B

Section 144Section 41(1)Section 44A

…Bhawan & Path Nirman (Bohra) & Company (No.2) (2002) 258 ITR 440 (Raj.), wherein, the decision in the case of Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Company P. Ltd. 78 ITR 55(Supreme Court), Naubartram Nandram vs CIT 86 ITR 805 (MP) and Bhagwat Prasad & Company (99 ITR 111) (All.) were also considered. The decision in the case of Income Tax Officer vs Jaikishan Arjun Singh ((supra)) from the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal further supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order was p…

ANIL KUMAR DANGAYACH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri L.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 41(1)Section 44A

…1974] 96 ITR 327 (Ker.), Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 853 (Kar.), CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 286 (Cal.), Bijli Cotton Mill (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 400 (All.) and Bhagwat Prasad & Co. v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 111 (All.). 4. The learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Indian Motor Transport Co. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 677. In our opinion, this decision of the Allahabad High Court cannot be construed as taking a contrary view on account of the fact that this too is a decision by the Division Bench alike the…

ITO 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CHEMICAL & ALKALI DISTRIBUTORS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6274/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anju KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…lls Ltd. (1988) 172 lTR 430 (All). Unclaimed commission payable to a party debited to his account and credited to P&L A/c [ClT vs. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (1989) 177 lTR 128 (Bom) Unclaimed advances received from customers [Bhagwat Prasad & Co. vs. ClT (1975) 99 ITR 111 (All). See also ClT VS.Modest Maritime Services (P) Ltd. (2011) 338 lTR 64 (Bom). 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of aforesaid decisions, it is held that there is no positive act on the part of the creditors in the current year which would provide benefit to the appellant by way of remission of liabilit…

CIT vs. CHIPSOFT TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed in the

ITA/598/2011HC Delhi20 Jul 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 41Section 41(1)

…ITA-598/2011 Page 1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 16.07.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 20.7.2012 + ITA 598/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. versus CHIPSOFT TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Parag Chawla, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present appeal by the revenue is directed against a judgment of the Income Tax App…

140 ITR 286 (Cal.), Bijli Cotton Mill (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (99 ITR 111) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax