Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT

248 ITR 656High Court2001#23949 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2016.

Judgments citing Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT

Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M.N. Maurya, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 619(3)(b)

…at Cauvery basin refinery, Nagapatinam and the decisions relied by the company are distinguished by the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Karnataka High Court in the case of Senapathy Synams Insulations Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 656 and also jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Binny Limited (1995) 215 ITR 536 based on the observations of jurisdictional High Court the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has concurred with the findings of the Assessing ITA No. 720/Mds/2015. :- 10 -: Officer and treated the expenditure as capital in nature and conf…

CIT vs. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

ITA/1163/2010HC Delhi13 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 260A

…7,033/- (p) Electrical expenses on market yard – Rs.6,17,040/-” 4. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the CIT(A) has placed reliance on Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC), SENAPATHY Synams Insulations (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 248 ITR 656 (Kar.) and CIT v. Norht Dhemo Coal Co. Ltd., (1977) 106 ITR 592 (Cal.). ITA No.1163/2010 Page 5 of 6 5. The tribunal, after referring to the submissions, has held as follows:- “10. Learned counsel for the assessee in reply contends that…

CIT vs. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

ITA - 1163 / 2010HC Delhi13 Sept 2010
Section 260A

…7,033/- (p) Electrical expenses on market yard – Rs.6,17,040/-” 4. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the CIT(A) has placed reliance on Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC), SENAPATHY Synams Insulations (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 248 ITR 656 (Kar.) and CIT v. Norht Dhemo Coal Co. Ltd., (1977) 106 ITR 592 (Cal.). 2010:DHC:4468-DB 5. The tribunal, after referring to the submissions, has held as follows:- “10. Learned counsel for the assessee in reply contends that the assessee incurs expenditure under various heads as it has to take care of so many marketing yards. The sa…

Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT (248 ITR 656) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax