236 ITR 315; CIT v. Sarabhai

307 ITR 89Supreme Court of India#20432 most cited
4

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

Judgments citing 236 ITR 315; CIT v. Sarabhai

JCIT (OSD) Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1489/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…o. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 27; CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co., reported in 46 ITR 144; Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746; CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., reported in 236 ITR 315; CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings Pvt. Ltd., reported in 307 ITR 89, among others. 3.5. The assessee also, on without prejudice basis, submitted that in any case out of the total interest payment of Rs.6.52 Crores, a sum of Rs.1.93 Crores was paid as interest on term loans which could not have been used for granting interest free loans or for any other purposes 7 ITA No. 1489/Mum/2018 & ITA No.1462/Mum/2018 M/s.…

M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1462/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…o. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 27; CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co., reported in 46 ITR 144; Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746; CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., reported in 236 ITR 315; CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings Pvt. Ltd., reported in 307 ITR 89, among others. 3.5. The assessee also, on without prejudice basis, submitted that in any case out of the total interest payment of Rs.6.52 Crores, a sum of Rs.1.93 Crores was paid as interest on term loans which could not have been used for granting interest free loans or for any other purposes 7 ITA No. 1489/Mum/2018 & ITA No.1462/Mum/2018 M/s.…

Sge Advisors (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5738/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…interest on advances, before it accrued to the assessee and accordingly it would not be added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad Vs Sarabhai Holding Private Limited (307 ITR 89) and submitted that when the law permits for modifying the mutual agreement to waive the interest, no interest would accrue to the assessee. The learned counsel submitted that interest was charged upto assessment year 2004-05, however, from assessment year 2005-06, no principal amount. According to the learned counsel, the loans were given for com…

The Karnataka State Co-Op Apex Bank Ltd vs. JCIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 713/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)

…ssues to be examined; Whether the guarantee commission accrued in the respective year or accrued during the year after rejection of the claim by the government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles in the case of CIT Vs Sarabhai Pvt. Ltd 307 ITR 89(SC), which are required to be examined in addition to the other principles on the issue of the accrual of income/waiver of claim, not only if the amount is statutorily payable, provision of Sec.43B of the IT Act, may also be applicable which makes the claim in earlier years not allowable, but allowable only in the year of payment. These aspects ha…

236 ITR 315; CIT v. Sarabhai (307 ITR 89) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax