Calcutta co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR I (SC) and Bharat Earth-Movers v. CIT

35 ITR 18Reported decision#24601 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2021.

Judgments citing Calcutta co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR I (SC) and Bharat Earth-Movers v. CIT

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Late Shri Naren Rajan, Rep.by L/H Smt. Padmini V.R, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…g contract between the parties the same is allowable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Calcutta co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR I (SC) and Bharat Earth-Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) as well as the decision of the Special Bench reported in 35 ITR 18 [(sic)--(1990) 34 ITD 50 (Hyd)(SB) (supra)]and (1992) 43 ITD 527 (Mad) (supra) and as conceded by the Department before the jurisdictional High court in (2003) 130 Taxman 400 (Mad) (supra). iv. The Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakapatnam in the case of ACIT vs. KCP Limited in I.T.A.Nos.449/Viz/2016 and 244/Viz/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-l3) has hel…

Padmini Rajan, L/R of Late (Shri) Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…g contract between the parties the same is allowable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Calcutta co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR I (SC) and Bharat Earth-Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) as well as the decision of the Special Bench reported in 35 ITR 18 [(sic)--(1990) 34 ITD 50 (Hyd)(SB) (supra)]and (1992) 43 ITD 527 (Mad) (supra) and as conceded by the Department before the jurisdictional High court in (2003) 130 Taxman 400 (Mad) (supra). iv. The Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakapatnam in the case of ACIT vs. KCP Limited in I.T.A.Nos.449/Viz/2016 and 244/Viz/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-l3) has hel…

Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…g contract between the parties the same is allowable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Calcutta co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR I (SC) and Bharat Earth-Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) as well as the decision of the Special Bench reported in 35 ITR 18 [(sic)--(1990) 34 ITD 50 (Hyd)(SB) (supra)]and (1992) 43 ITD 527 (Mad) (supra) and as conceded by the Department before the jurisdictional High court in (2003) 130 Taxman 400 (Mad) (supra). iv. The Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakapatnam in the case of ACIT vs. KCP Limited in I.T.A.Nos.449/Viz/2016 and 244/Viz/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-l3) has hel…

Calcutta co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR I (SC) and Bharat Earth-Movers v. CIT (35 ITR 18) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax