19 ITR 612 (Cal) 3. CIT v. H. Hiriee

60 ITR 732High Court1966#12890 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing 19 ITR 612 (Cal) 3. CIT v. H. Hiriee

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2442/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e: S.No. Judicial Precedents 1. JB. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax and Excess Profits Tax [1950] 18 ITR 557 (Bom) 2. CIT v. H. Hirjee [1951] 19 ITR 612 (Cal) 3. CIT v. H. Hiriee [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC) 4. JN. Singh & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 732 (Pun) 5. Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2444/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e: S.No. Judicial Precedents 1. JB. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax and Excess Profits Tax [1950] 18 ITR 557 (Bom) 2. CIT v. H. Hirjee [1951] 19 ITR 612 (Cal) 3. CIT v. H. Hiriee [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC) 4. JN. Singh & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 732 (Pun) 5. Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2443/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e: S.No. Judicial Precedents 1. JB. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax and Excess Profits Tax [1950] 18 ITR 557 (Bom) 2. CIT v. H. Hirjee [1951] 19 ITR 612 (Cal) 3. CIT v. H. Hiriee [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC) 4. JN. Singh & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 732 (Pun) 5. Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. E Bay India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7098/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-2008 The Dcit-6 (2), M/S. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 563, 202, B-Wing, Phoenix House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Churchgate, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 13 Pan: Aabcb2307H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 37/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 M/S. E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit- Circle 6(2), 14Th Floor, North Block, Room No. 563, R-Tech Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Western Express Highway, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aabcb2307H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: S.K. Mishra (DR)
Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…iate the contention of the assessee:- 1. Maruti Udyog Limited (92 ITD 119) Delhi Tribunal. 2. J B Advani & Company Limited (18 ITR 557) (Bombay High Court) 3. National Rayon Corporation (155 ITR 413) (Bombay High Court) 4. J N Singh & Company Private Limited (60 ITR 732) (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 5. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stockholders Association Private Limited (99 ITR 567) (Gujarat High Court). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the parties. The only grievance of the department is that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment 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 Shr…

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

…allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singb & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)]. Legal expenses incurred by assessee-company, a sugar mill, in defending a criminal prosecution launched against its director-manager and some employees on charge of conspiracy between the assessee and the railway employees to give and accept 13 Hiranandani Akruti JV bribes in regard to transport of sugarcane from various stations to m…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…an allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Born) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singb & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)]. Legal expenses incurred by assessee- company, a sugar mill, in defending a criminal prosecution launched against its director-manager and some employees on charge of conspiracy between the assessee and the railway employees to give and accept bribes in regard to transport of sugarcane from various stations to mill were held to be allowabl…

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:

…s an allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singb & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)]. Legal expenses incurred by assessee-company, a sugar mill, in defending a criminal prosecution launched against its director-manager and some employees on charge of conspiracy between the assessee and the railway employees to give and accept bribes in regard to transport of sugarcane from various stations to mill were held to be allowable…