Ahmedabad) (iii) Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT

152 ITR 552High Court1985#19250 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Ahmedabad) (iii) Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT

Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow vs. M/S Dev Bhoomi Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

…. vs. DCIT (1994] 49 ITD 355 [ITAT, Calcutta) (ii) DCIT vs. Brijlaxmi Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 546 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) (iii) Prism Cement Limited vs. JCIT (2006) 101 ITD 103 (ITAT, Mumbai) (iv) Addl. CIT vs. Om Oils & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 552 (Del.) (v) Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 158 (SC) (vi) Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (ITAT, Mumbai) (vii) Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd., In Rel3 ITR 457 (Lahore) (viii) Jaikishan Dadlani vs. ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138 (ITAT, Mumbai) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Topaz Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2271/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata.................................………....………………...…………………….….Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…zed from the issue of its shares represented reserve not includible in computing the profits of the company for the purpose of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In addition to above, we also rely on High Court decisions in the cases of Om Oils & Seeds Exchange Ltd 152 ITR 552 and Krishnaram Baldeo Bank (P) Ltd. reported in 144 ITR 600 also followed the same principle. The same 9 I.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Topaz Enclave Pvt. Ltd view was affirmed in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. reported in 225 ITR 792 wherein it is held that share premium is in the nature of capital…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Finproject India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4860/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash PareekFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) DCIT, 1(1)(2), बिाम/ M/s. Finproject India 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Private Ltd., M.K. Road, SP-1013, v. Mumbai-400020 Sitapura, Industrial Area, Phase-III, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCF4445N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal (DR) Assessee by: Shri Prem Prakash…

Sh Chand Rattan Bagri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5

ITA 2125/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishichand Rattan Bagri, Acit, 4318/3, Ansari Road, Circle-3(1), Vs. Darya Ganj, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan:Aagpb1216K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Chand Rattan Bagri, Acit, 4318/3, Ansari Road, Circle-3(1), Vs. Darya Ganj, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan:Aagpb1216K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…TA No. 4188/Del/2010 vide order dated 7.12.2011. - Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 - TI Diamond Chain Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 151 Taxman 69. - Privy Council in Ralli Estates Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 1 WLR 329 (PC). - ACIT vs. Om Oils Seeds Exchange Ltd. 152 ITR 552, - Asiatic Oxygen vs. DCIT 49 ITD 359 - Mahindra and Mahindra vs. CIT 265 ITR 501 11. The above case laws amply support the proposition that amount received as a capital receipt toward financial instruments like warrants, share capital etc. cannot be treated as business receipts. Since the assessee company is not in the business of selling of s…

Ahmedabad) (iii) Prism Cement Limited v. JCIT (152 ITR 552) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax