29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. v. ITO

194 CTR 451High Court2005#12336 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing 29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. v. ITO

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…o. c) 177 Taxman 300 (Del) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. d) 184 Taxman 352 (Del) CIT vs. H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd. e) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. f) 29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii), me…

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1303/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…o. c) 177 Taxman 300 (Del) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. d) 184 Taxman 352 (Del) CIT vs. H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd. e) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. f) 29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii), me…

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5375/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…o. c) 177 Taxman 300 (Del) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. d) 184 Taxman 352 (Del) CIT vs. H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd. e) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. f) 29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in 22 CO No. 83/Del/2022 Jagson International Ltd. scope th…

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6872/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…o. c) 177 Taxman 300 (Del) CIT vs. DCM Ltd. d) 184 Taxman 352 (Del) CIT vs. H.B. Stock Holdings Ltd. e) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. f) 29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. vs. ITO g) 20 SOT 47 (Mum) Tata Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT h) 194 CTR 451 (All) CIT vs. RadicoKhaitan Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression "for the purposes of Business & Profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in 22 CO No. 83/Del/2022 Jagson International Ltd. scope th…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact based on the appreciation of the evidence, and we find no perversity or infirmity in the order impugned, and no question of law arises out of the order of ITAT.” 6.3.5 Also refer CIT v/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR 451/274 ITR 354 (All) (HC) held that: “Business expenditure – Interest on borrowed capital – Interest free advances to sister-concern – Tribunal having found on facts that assessee had sufficient funds in the form of capital reserve and surplus other than the borrowed funds, assessee was entitled to full allowance of interest on borrowed money.” 6.3.…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya ( Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact based on the appreciation of the evidence, and we find no perversity or infirmity in the order impugned, and no question of law arises out of the order of ITAT.” 6.3.5 Also refer CIT v/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR 451/274 ITR 354 (All) (HC) held that: “Business expenditure – Interest on borrowed capital – Interest free advances to sister-concern – Tribunal having found on facts that assessee had sufficient funds in the form of capital reserve and surplus other than the borrowed funds, assessee was entitled to full allowance of interest on borrowed money.” 6.3.…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

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

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…A246/JP/2015 M/S. ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE VS JCIT, RANGE-2, KOTA 3.4 For various other case laws, kindly refer Annexure 1 to Revised w/s to ITAT dated 1st February 2021 (The assessee in Annexure 1 has relied upon the cases of CIT v/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR 451/274 ITR 354 (All) (HC), Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT & Anr. (2017) 151 DTR 0089 (SC), East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v/s CIT (1997) 139 CTR 0372 (SC), Munjal Sales Corporation v/s CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC), CIT vs. HDFC Bank LTD. (2016) 284 CTR 0409 (Bom) (DPB 64-70), Hero Cycle P. Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 128 DTR 1/379 ITR 34…

Shri Kedar Prasad Khandelwal, Tonk vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 878/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…no interest can be disallowed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) ACIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2012) 143 TTJ 1 (Jp) (ii) CIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (iii) CIT v/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR 451/274 ITR 354 (All) (HC) (iv) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Mum) 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the disallowance of interest so made by the A.O., accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the disallowances of Rs. 26,21,505/-. 10. With regard to disallowance of various ex…

29 SOT 531 (Mum) Metro Exports Ltd. v. ITO (194 CTR 451) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax