239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT v. Prem

262 ITR 648Reported decision#20192 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing 239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT v. Prem

M/S Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commmissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T 308 ITR 38 (2009) 21. (Delhi High Court) Gujarat Ginning & Mfg Co Ltd vs CIT 108 ITR 674 (1977) (Gujarat High 22. Court) Modepro India Private Limited vs DCIT (2010 — TIOL — 325 — ITAT- 23. MUM) (Mumbai ITAT) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs DCIT [262 ITR 648] (Delhi 24. High Court) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Elgi Finance Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 674 25. (Madras High Court) Page 7 of 11 Commissioner of Income Tax vs Chamundeswari 2007 (290 ITR 580) 26. (Madras High Court) 27. CIT vs S.R. Construction (257 ITR 502) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) McDermott International Inc vs Additional Commissioner of Inc…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ourt to contravene the disallowance: 1) S.A. Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 2) CIT vs. Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT vs. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 554) (All) 5) ONGC vs. DCIT (262 ITR 648) (Uttaranchal) 6) CIT vs. Raghuvir Sythetics Ltd. (36 Taxman.com 275) (Guj) 7) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) (Bom) I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 Therefore, by applying the ratios of the above mentioned judgments, it was submitted that since the assessee had common funds both interest bearing and non interes…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ourt to contravene the disallowance: 1) S.A. Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 2) CIT vs. Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT vs. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 554) (All) 5) ONGC vs. DCIT (262 ITR 648) (Uttaranchal) 6) CIT vs. Raghuvir Sythetics Ltd. (36 Taxman.com 275) (Guj) 7) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) (Bom) I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 Therefore, by applying the ratios of the above mentioned judgments, it was submitted that since the assessee had common funds both interest bearing and non interes…

M/S.Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 409/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ourt to contravene the disallowance: 1) S.A. Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 2) CIT vs. Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT vs. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 554) (All) 5) ONGC vs. DCIT (262 ITR 648) (Uttaranchal) 6) CIT vs. Raghuvir Sythetics Ltd. (36 Taxman.com 275) (Guj) 7) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) (Bom) I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 Therefore, by applying the ratios of the above mentioned judgments, it was submitted that since the assessee had common funds both interest bearing and non interes…

239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT v. Prem (262 ITR 648) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax