43 ITR 315,317-8 (MP); Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) P. Ltd. v. CIT

101 ITR 502High Court1975#21827 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing 43 ITR 315,317-8 (MP); Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) P. Ltd. v. CIT

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

…... The interest in such a case is received as part of the purchase price itself that is to say, as part of the consideration for sale of goods on deferred payment basis and not as a separate source - CIT v. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [1975] 101 ITR 502 (Guj.) the mere nomenclature employed by the parties notwithstanding. When the payment of interest is a part and parcel of the agreement to pay the unpaid purchase money on a deferred payment basis there is no indebtedness-Chittela Venkata Subba Reddy v Jayanthi Audinarayana A.S. 446 of 1964 (AP) dated 2-8-1968 (Per Kondaiah, J., as he then was)…

M/S G G Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…CORRECTED COPY IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income 2301, Bhupindra Flour Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda [PAN: AADCG 8857 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora & Sh. Parshotam K. Singla (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appea…

Vinod Kumar Mittal, Beawar vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 783/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ose of business, but for their individual benefit. No specific defect has been pointed out in the conclusion of the CIT(A). The same is upheld.— Lakhmichand Muchhal vs. CIT (1961) 43 ITR 315 (MP) and CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. (1975) 101 ITR 502 (Guj) relied on.” (5) Sri Satchindananad S. Pandit v/s ITO 19 SOT 213(Mum Trib) (6) In the case of ACIT v/s Shri Narayan J. Pagrani in ITA No. 7480/Mum/2011 vide order dated 13.08.2014 (DPB 48-51) wherein, it was held that 9 Shri Vinod Kumar Mittal vs ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ajmer “-------the accumulated profits of company for the purposes of 2(22)(e…