2 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT v. G.M. Chennabasappa

49 ITR 293High Court1963#25107 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing 2 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT v. G.M. Chennabasappa

Fortis Hospitals Ltd vs. ACIT Circle 9(2) New Delhi

ITA-132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…Page 8 of 12 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad.); 10. He further submits that even otherwise, non-compete fee, being an…

Fortis Hospitals Ltd

ITA/132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

…pport the contention of the assessee before us in any manner. 32. The learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pokhraj Hirachand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1963] 49 ITR 293. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘thereon’ occurring in Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act means ‘on the subject matter of appeal’ before the Tribunal and reading the relevant Rules 22 and 27 of the Income Tax Rules governing the procedure before the Tribunal, the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, th…