239 ITR 775 and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

247 ITR 267Supreme Court of India2001#20176 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 32 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(2)Section 270A Section 271AAC(1)Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 32 transfer person section 143(3)india business document

Judgments citing 239 ITR 775 and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and Cross objections I and II of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3332/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Urvish ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 32

…rpose of its business. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on certain judicial precedents in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC),Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 267 (SC).It is also submitted that the assessee is the real owner of the leased assets as it makes the choice of asset to be purchased, takes delivery of the asset, maintains and operates the assets, undertakes indemnity and bears the risk of loss or damage and gets the property insured. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Asea Br…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and\nCross objections I and II of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3331/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 32

…of its business. In support of this\nproposition, reliance was placed on certain judicial precedents in\nCIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC), Mysore\nMinerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)and Dalmia Cement\n(Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 267 (SC).It is also submitted that\nthe assessee is the real owner of the leased assets as it makes the\nchoice of asset to be purchased, takes delivery of the asset,\nmaintains and operates the assets, undertakes indemnity and bears\nthe risk of loss or damage and gets the property insured. Reliance\nwas also placed on the decision in the case of As…

KISAN,NIZAMABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

…on over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 267 (SC) and submitted that, the Hon'ble Court relying on the decision of Mysore Mineral Limited Vs. CIT (supra), held that any one in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use the property and enjoy its usufruct in his own right would be owne…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DAIKIN SHRI RAM AIRCON PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/905/2010HC Delhi17 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 260ASection 32

…ITA 905/2010 and ITA 130/2013 Page 1 of 11 $~16 and 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 905/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Puneet Rai, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue along with Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue and Mr.Nikhil Jain, Advocate. versus DAIKIN SHRI RAM AIRCON PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ravi Pratap Mall, Mr. Uma Shankar and Mr.Mahir Aggarwal, Advocates. AND 17 + ITA 130/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI –IV ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Puneet Rai, Senior Standing Counsel for Re…