19 of the Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT

121 ITR 56Supreme Court of India1980#22200 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 19 of the Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda vs. M/S Apex Fibre India Limited, Bathinda

ITA 84/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…0 ITR three cases relied upon by the AO has been 715, Nirmal Trading Co. vs. CIT discussed in detail. (1980) 121 ITR 54, and Jute The finding of the CIT(A) [Page 19 of the Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) order] “Therefore in all the three cases relied upon 121 ITR 56 wherein it was held that by the Assessing Officer it was categorically held that the transaction of transfer to only the delivery orders exchanged hands and there delivery notes as speculative. was no physical and actual delivery of goods. But that was not the case in the case of the appellant where physical delivery of goods had taken place from…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda vs. M/S G.H. Crop Science Private Limited, Bathinda

ITA 56/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…0 ITR three cases relied upon by the AO has been 715, Nirmal Trading Co. vs. CIT discussed in detail. (1980) 121 ITR 54, and Jute The finding of the CIT(A) [Page 19 of the Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) order] “Therefore in all the three cases relied upon 121 ITR 56 wherein it was held that by the Assessing Officer it was categorically held that the transaction of transfer to only the delivery orders exchanged hands and there delivery notes as speculative. was no physical and actual delivery of goods. But that was not the case in the case of the appellant where physical delivery of goods had taken place from…

C. Bharat Kumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/BANG/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

…ions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…. ITA No.123(B)/12 a. CIT Vs Puttaiah Seshaiah& Co. (1984) 146 ITR 168 (AP) b. CIT Vs Shantilal Pvt.Ltd (1983) 144 ITR 57(SC) c. Davenport & Co.Pvt.Ltd Vs CIT (1975) 100 ITR 715 (SC) d. Jute Investment Co.Ltd. Vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 56 (SC) e.Raghunath Prasad Poddar Vs CIT (1973) 90 ITR 140(SC) f. Sind National Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 742(Bom.) and its earlier decisions in the case of CIT Vs Puttaiah Seshaiah & Co. (1984) 146 ITR 168 (AP) 146 ITR 168 held as follows; “After considering the definition of ‘speculative transaction’ contained in clause(5) of se…

19 of the Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT (121 ITR 56) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax