CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd.

135 ITR 278High Court1982#19026 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd.

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…was paid by it to M/s Vilter Manufacturing Corporation, USA, as the same was in the nature of a revenue expenditure. Also, support was drawn by the assessee from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd, 135 ITR 278. As regards the judicial pronouncements that were pressed into service by the assessee, the CIT(A) observed, that as the same were distinguishable on facts and/or delivered prior to insertion of Clause (ii) to Sec. 32(1) of the Act, therefore, the same would not assist the case of the assessee before him. Observing, that M/s Vilter Manufacturin…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…was paid by it to M/s Vilter Manufacturing Corporation, USA, as the same was in the nature of a revenue expenditure. Also, support was drawn by the assessee from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd, 135 ITR 278. As regards the judicial pronouncements that were pressed into service by the assessee, the CIT(A) observed, that as the same were distinguishable on facts and/or delivered prior to insertion of Clause (ii) to Sec. 32(1) of the Act, therefore, the same would not assist the case of the assessee before him. Observing, that M/s Vilter Manufacturin…

Opera Clothing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 8083/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Opera Clothing Vs Ito-18(1)(3), Private Limited, Mumbai 2 & 4, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, S.J. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo4522H

Section 80I

…CIT (1992) 62 taxman 480 (SC). However, for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, the assessee has to establish certain facts. The income must be 6 M/s Opera Clothing Private Limited. directly generated from the business. In CIT vs Kochin Refineries Ltd. 135 ITR 278 (Kerala) and CIT vs Cement Distributors Ltd. 208 ITR 355 (Del.), it was held that income must be directly generated from business. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Kothari Products Ltd. 295 ITR 223 (All.) supports the case of the Revenue. For taking the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB, we are of the view that the source of import entitlements cann…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

ITTA/422/2006HC Telangana27 Aug 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. (135 ITR 278) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax