80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC)

162 ITR 373Supreme Court of India1986#10479 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 80e section 75 section 32(2)convertible foreign exchange section 80ab section 32a section 80m section 80h domestic company section 80c section 80hhc deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC)

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

…rust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 8. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 Page 20 of 39 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proc…

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

…r Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 9. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further…

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

…rust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 8. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 Page 18 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore 115. We have carefully c…

AVANTHA REALTY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 360/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: ShriUpvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.KirtiSankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 36(1)

…to derive income by way of dividends. 9. The judgments in CocanadaRadhaswami Bank {supra) and United Commercial Bank {supra) and the subsequent judgments in Western States Trading (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 21 (SCI and Brooke Bond & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 373/28 Taxman 426E (SC! are authorities that the heads of income enumerated in the Income Tax Act in Section 14 do not denote their essential characteristics. In other words that a business or an individual receives some amount which may be assessed as income of a particular kind would not be conclusively determinative of that character. In the facts…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…view of the fact, it was found that investment in shares of company by the assessee was in the nature of trade investment. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly followed the judgment of the Supreme Court int he case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 373. The commissioner (appeals) had also followed the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corpn. V CIT [1967] wherein it was held that if the investment in shares and sale thereof is closely linked with the business of the assessee, the loss suffered on account of such sale would be a trading loss. 2…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…m off—One GSL was promoted with the same object os a subsidiary and later on sold off when the loss started mounting—Loss on sale of shares of GSL was thus rightly allowed by C1T(A) as trading loss—Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 57 CTR (SC) 25 : (1986) 162 ITR 373 (SC) and Rajasthan Financial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 112 (Raj) relied on. Conclusion: Loss on sale of shares of company promoted by assessee, a Government Corporation to promote industrial growth in the State was allowable as trading loss," M Raiasthon Financial Corporation vs. CIT [19671 65 ITR 112 (Raj HC1 I.T.A Nos. 976/Ahd/201…

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

COSMOS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3730/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Cosmos Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Garg R. Kumar & Associates, Cas, Circle-3(1), 7, Advocate Chambers, New Delhi. Raj Nagar District Centre, Above Dominos Pizza, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaacc6682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Sugar. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,36,93,430/- & Income U/S 115Jb At Rs.4,01,70,500/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 37

…the assessee-company was in the nature of trade investment. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has correctly followed the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 57CTR (SC) 25 : (1986) 162 ITR 373 (SC). The learned CIT(A) has also followed the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 112 (Raj), wherein it was held that if the investment in shares and sale thereof is closely linked with the business of the assessee, the loss suffered on account of such sale would be a trad…

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…the above issue and has held as under: “The judgments in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank (supra) and United Commercial Bank (supra) and the subsequent judgments in Western States Trading (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 21 (SC) and Brooke Bond & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 373/28 Taxman 426E (SC) are authorities that the heads of income enumerated in the Income Tax Act in Section 14 do not denote their essential characteristics. In other words that a business or an individual receives some amount which may be assessed as income of a particular kind would not be conclusively determinative of that character. In the facts…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1322/2006HC Karnataka24 Jul 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 260ASection 29Section 56Section 56(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.1322/2006 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE – 6, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.G.KAMALADHAR, ADV) AND: M/S.CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 2 NO.112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE. …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.S.RAMABADRAN, ADV)…