CIT v. Chari & Ram

17 ITR 1High Court1949#9000 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 244ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetssection 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 80hsection 36(2)section 36(1)(viia)right to receivesection 80hhcsection 80hhinterest on securitiessection 41section 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Chari & Ram

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…n within a classification is therefore contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. 66. In context of netting off depreciation against appreciation, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram [1949] 17 ITR 1 (Madras) has held that there would be no assurance that there would be a market for the entire stock of articles of which the market value is higher and therefore, it would be hazardous to assume that the entire stock could be sold at the prevailing market rate and necessarily bring in a profit. The High Court also held that there is no provision of…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…n within a classification is therefore contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. 66. In context of netting off depreciation against appreciation, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram [1949] 17 ITR 1 (Madras) has held that there would be no assurance that there would be a market for the entire stock of articles of which the market value is higher and therefore, it would be hazardous to assume that the entire stock could be sold at the prevailing market rate and necessarily bring in a profit. The High Court also held that there is no provision of…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…tated that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate benches for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2005 – 06, 2004 – 05 and 2008 – 09. The learned AR further placed reliance on the decision of the honourable madras High Court in 17 ITR 1 and UCO bank in case of 240 ITR 355. 130) The learned CIT DR submitted that assessee has not made such claim in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings letter dated 4 March 2008 was submitted wherein such claim was made. The learned CIT – A confirmed the action of the AO holding that the depreciation/appreciation in individ…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate benches for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2005 – 06, 2004 – 05 and 2008 – 09. The learned AR further placed reliance on the decision of the honourable madras High Court in 17 ITR 1 and UCO bank in case of 240 ITR 355. 130) The learned CIT DR submitted that assessee has not made such claim in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings letter dated 4 March 2008 was submitted wherein such claim was made. The learned CIT – A confirmed the action of the AO holding that the depreciation/appreciation in i…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…on within a classification is therefore contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. 66. In context of netting off depreciation against appreciation, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram [1949] 17 ITR 1 (Madras) has held that there would be State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 no assurance that there would be a market for the entire stock of articles of which the market value is higher and therefore, it would be hazardous to assume that the entire stock could be sold at the prevailing market rate and necessarily bring in…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…on within a classification is therefore contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. 66. In context of netting off depreciation against appreciation, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram [1949] 17 ITR 1 (Madras) has held that there would be State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 no assurance that there would be a market for the entire stock of articles of which the market value is higher and therefore, it would be hazardous to assume that the entire stock could be sold at the prevailing market rate and necessarily bring in…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…A.Y. 2004-05 vide order dated 30.09.2012 in ITA No.3780/M/2012, for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 03.02.2020 in ITA No.3644/M/2016 and has also placed reliance on decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram (1949) 17 ITR 1 (Madras) and on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC). This factual position has not been controverted by the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue. 28 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India 28. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of t…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…A.Y. 2004-05 vide order dated 30.09.2012 in ITA No.3780/M/2012, for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 03.02.2020 in ITA No.3644/M/2016 and has also placed reliance on decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram (1949) 17 ITR 1 (Madras) and on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC). This factual position has not been controverted by the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue. 28 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India 28. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of t…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3779/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

…on within a classification is therefore contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. 66. In context of netting off depreciation against appreciation, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram [1949] 17 ITR 1 (Madras) has held that there would be no assurance that there would be a market for the entire stock of articles of which the market value is higher and therefore, it would be hazardous to assume that the entire stock could be sold at the prevailing market rate and necessarily bring in a profit. The High Court also held that there is no provision of…

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…provision of SEZ Act, 2005 or SEZ Rules,2006 or that the assessee was not an entrepreneur referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of SEZ Act, 2005 ....xxx" The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestetner Duplications P. Ltd. vs. CIT ( 117 ITR 1 ) relied on by the Tribunal are as under: "12. The facts in the present case that need be stressed in this behalf are that it was as far back as 1937 that the Commissioner of Income- tax had granted recognition to the provident fund maintained by the assessee under the relevant rules under 1922 Act, that such recognition had been granted after the…

DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…provision of SEZ Act, 2005 or SEZ Rules,2006 or that the assessee was not an entrepreneur referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of SEZ Act, 2005 ....xxx" The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestetner Duplications P. Ltd. vs. CIT ( 117 ITR 1 ) relied on by the Tribunal are as under: "12. The facts in the present case that need be stressed in this behalf are that it was as far back as 1937 that the Commissioner of Income- tax had granted recognition to the provident fund maintained by the assessee under the relevant rules under 1922 Act, that such recognition had been granted after the…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. 66. In context of netting off depreciation against appreciation, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chari & Ram [1949] 17 ITR 1 (Madras) has held that there would be no assurance that there would be a market for the entire stock of articles of which the market value is higher and therefore, it would be hazardous to assume that the entire stock could be sold at the prevailing market rate and necessarily bring in a profit. The High Court also held that there is no provision of…