81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

67 ITR 361High Court1968#16093 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2442/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…iriee [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC) 4. JN. Singh & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 732 (Pun) 5. Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (C…

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2444/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…iriee [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC) 4. JN. Singh & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 732 (Pun) 5. Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (C…

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2443/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…iriee [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC) 4. JN. Singh & Co. Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 732 (Pun) 5. Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (C…

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…contain 5% til oil as required by the Government rule was held to be an expenditure incurred with a view to proving the quality and standard of the manufactured goods produced by the assessee and, therefore, deductible [Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1968) 67 ITR 361 (Pat)]. 2.10. In Ananda Marga Pracharaka Sang ha v. CIT [(1996) 218 ITR 254, 258, 2 (Cal)] , the legal expenses incurred by the assessee for defending Marga Guru, the president of the association and other members of the association against criminal charges have been held allowable as a permissible expenditure while computing the income of th…

DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…required by the Government rule was held to be an expenditure incurred with a view to proving the quality and standard of the manufactured goods produced by the assessee and, therefore, held to be deductible expenditure [Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1968) 67 ITR 361 (Pat)]. 5.2 In Ananda Marga Pracharaka Sang ha v. CIT [(1996) 218 ITR 254, 258, 2 (Cal)] , the legal expenses incurred by the assessee for defending Marga Guru, the president of the association and other members of the association against criminal charges have been held 20 Wadhwa Constructions allowable as a permissible expenditure while comput…

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…t contain 5% til oil as required by the Government rule was held to be an expenditure incurred with a view to proving the quality and standard of the manufactured goods produced by the assessee and, therefore, deductible [Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1968) 67 ITR 361 (Pat)]. 3.11. In Ananda Marga Pracharaka Sang ha v. CIT [(1996) 218 ITR 254, 258, 2 (Cal)] , the legal expenses incurred by the assessee for defending Marga Guru, the president of the association and other members of the association against criminal charges have been held allowable as a permissible expenditure while computing the income of the as…

81 ITR 633 (Bom) 6. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (67 ITR 361) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax