62 Taxman 254 (Kerala HC) 5 CIT v. High Land Produce Co. Ltd.

102 ITR 803High Court1976#16475 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing 62 Taxman 254 (Kerala HC) 5 CIT v. High Land Produce Co. Ltd.

DIEBOLD NIXDORF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIEBOLD SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…nsultancy Services Private Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 98/CTK/2022) (Cuttack – Trib.) 3 Bombay Steam Navigation Co. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) 4 CIT vs. Aspinwal & Co. (Travancore) Ltd. [1992] 62 Taxman 254 (Kerala HC) 5 CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 803 (Kerala HC) 6 CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 419 (SC) 5. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) submitted, once the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee cannot subvert the process of law. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We have als…

DIEBOLD NIXDORF INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6135/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 474/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.474/Chny/2023 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S.Cognizant Technology Solutions Acit India Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1(1), बनाम/ (Successor-In-Interest Of Erstwhile Cognizant Chennai. Technology Services Pvt.Ltd.) Vs. 5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam Old Mahabalipuram Road,Chennai-600 096. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-3312-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji(Advocate) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee, In The Captioned Appeal, Is Disallowance Made By Ld. Ao U/S 36(V)(A) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) For Late Payment Of Epf & Esi Contributions Aggregating To Rs.79.47 Lacs. The Default Has Been Tabulated By Ld. Ao In Opening Para Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Fact That There Is Default In Payment Under Respective Acts

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…s found not to be fulfilling the conditions laid under those provisions, the same could not be claimed alternatively u/s 37(1). For the same reasons, the reliance of Ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. (102 ITR 803) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Khimji Visram & Sons (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (79 Taxman 112) render no assistance to the case of the assessee considering the cited decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 3. Order pronounced on 30th May, 2023. (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL…

UHDE INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3775/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Sheth, AR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…account in ascertaining the true profits and gains of business cannot be denied unless some statutory provision in clear words or by necessary implication negatives the adoption of such principle and practice as held in CIT v. High Land produce Co. Ltd (1976) 102 ITR 803 (Ker.) affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1986) 158 ITR 419. In CIT v. Madras Auto Service(P.) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “ where an old building taken on lease by the assessee was demolished by him and rebuilt to reoccupy the new building for a further period of 20 years at the old rent, it was h…

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

…[1975] 101 ITR 292 was a case on which reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee where provision was made but was a case before the enactment of section 40A (7) arising out of the assessment year 1972-73. Similarly CIT v .High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 803 (Ker.) another decision relied on by the assessee, was where a provision was made. It arose out of the assessment year 1970-71 before the enactment of section 40A(7). These are the cases upon which the assessee had relied. Another case upon which the assessee relied was Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 1038 (All.). This case a…