Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC)

259 ITR 26High Court2003#13921 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 80esection 75section 32(2)convertible foreign exchangesection 80absection 32asection 80msection 80hdomestic companysection 80csection 80hhcdeduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad 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

…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 proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries…

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

…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 it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which…

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

…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 considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the de…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…igible to he set-off against interest income 1. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 206 (SC) 2. Lavish Apartment P Ltd v ACIT [2018] 405 1TR 165 (Del) 3. CIT v S&S Power Switchgear Limited [2019] 415 ITR 376 (Mad) 4. CIT v Ramnath Goenka [2003] 259 ITR 26 (Mad) 17. The ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and he strongly submitted that the lower authorities have rightly decided the issue against the assessee. The assessee invested its surplus capital amounts in fixed deposits and received interest which is clear from the paper book page No. 279, therefore, both the authorities are jus…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…igible to he set-off against interest income 1. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 206 (SC) 2. Lavish Apartment P Ltd v ACIT [2018] 405 1TR 165 (Del) 3. CIT v S&S Power Switchgear Limited [2019] 415 ITR 376 (Mad) 4. CIT v Ramnath Goenka [2003] 259 ITR 26 (Mad) 17. The ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and he strongly submitted that the lower authorities have rightly decided the issue against the assessee. The assessee invested its surplus capital amounts in fixed deposits and received interest which is clear from the paper book page No. 279, therefore, both the authorities are jus…

M.K. CREATIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3885/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2010-11 M/S M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/O- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaafm2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 06/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 50Section 72

…nded that the nature of income is to be decided on commercial principles and not based on classification of income u/s 14 of the Act for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Cocanada Radhaswamy Bank ltd. 57 ITR 306 (SC), CIT vs Ramnath Goenka 259 ITR 26 (Mad.), CIT vs Excellent Commercial Enterprices and Investment Ltd. 282 ITR 423 (Del.), Southern Travels vs ACIT 232 taxman 689 (Del.) and Lavish Apartment Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxman 9 (Del.). On the other hand, Shri Suman Kumar, Ld. DR, defended the 3 M/s M. K. Creations addition confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1.…

K S VENKATESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

ITA/416/2009HC Karnataka03 Jul 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 72

…lowing Judgments: 1. (1971) 82 ITR 50 – T.S.Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs Volkart Brothers and others 2. (2012) 210 TAXMAN 9 (Delhi) – Lavish Apartment (P) Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3. (2003) 259 ITR 26 (Madras) – Commissioner of Income tax Vs Ramnath Goenka 4. Unreported Judgment of this court rendered on 09.06.2015 in ITA No.432/2009 – The Commissioner of Income Tax and anr Vs M/s.Crane Software International Ltd. 8 6. Per contra, Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent-revenue would support the or…

Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) (259 ITR 26) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax