Chandroji Rao v. CIT

77 ITR 743Reported decision1970#18262 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2019.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Chandroji Rao v. CIT

Mercedes - Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 35A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव,ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ ITA No. 1865/PUN/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( formerly known as Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase-III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. PAN : AABCM 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pun…

Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…tself to something; whereas the expression “consideration” can be in the nature of mandatory payment or Act or Abstinence from doing something at the desire of the parties. He also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Chandroji Rao Vs. CIT 77 ITR 743 which differentiates the terms “expenditure” and “consideration”. Applying the same principle to the facts of the present case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the expression “consideration” is already defined by the provisions of section 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 and submitted that the word “expenditure” is undefined. He…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…tself to something; whereas the expression “consideration” can be in the nature of mandatory payment or Act or Abstinence from doing something at the desire of the parties. He also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Chandroji Rao Vs. CIT 77 ITR 743 which differentiates the terms “expenditure” and “consideration”. Applying the same principle to the facts of the present case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the expression “consideration” is already defined by the provisions of section 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 and submitted that the word “expenditure” is undefined. He…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ambience Business Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 5290/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vs. M/S.Ambiance Business 6(1)(3), Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd., 401-E, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Neelam Centre, A Wing, S.K. Mumbai 400 020 Ahire,Marg,Worli,Mumbai -30 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Shri A. K. Dhondial, Sr. Dr Respondent By .. None Date Of Hearing .. 19-10-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 19- 10- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit-(A)-14, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-14/It.137/Rg.6(1)/10-11 Dated 10-05-2012. Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Ward -6 (1) (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Vide His Order Dated 28-12-2010 U/S 143(3) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter „The Act‟).

Section 143(3)

…rding to the learned counsel, receipt of interest also will not be an income. We have already seen that the Supreme Court in the three decisions in Dr. Shamlal Narula v. C1T , T. N. K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 465 and Chandroji Rao v. CIT[1970] 77 ITR 743, had clearly held that if interest was payable under a statute or under an agreement, express or implied, on any amount which has been withheld, or liable to be refunded, it would be income and not a capital receipt irrespective of the fact whether the interest paid is on a capital amount or profit. The interest paid under Section 214 of the Act b…

Shrimand Padmaraja R. Kadambanda, Dhulia vs. The Commnr. of Income Tax, Pune

C.A. No.-002201-002203 - 1979Supreme Court22 Apr 1992
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE
Section 15Section 15(1)Section 15(1)(d)Section 2(24)Section 4

…issioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, 49 ITR 594, approved. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 26 ITR 27 at 49 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha, 82 ITR 460, Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 77 ITR 743 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co., (1932) ILR 59 Cal. 1343 at p. 1352, referred to. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2201- 2203 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1978 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref. Nos 121/69, 191/73 and 192 of 1974. T.A. Ramchandra and A…