CIT v. Fivest Ltd.

229 ITR 548High Court#4003 most cited
29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)ready for usesection 31paper companysection 251(2)share capital and share premiumconstruction pesection 2(11)source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 43(6)section 251(1)(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Fivest Ltd.

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…SC) • Shankar Industries V CIT 114 • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) ITR 689 (Cal) • Dhanlakshmi Steel Re-rolling CIT(A) has differentiated the Mills V CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) • Malabar Agricultural Co Ltd V following judgments: • Nova Promoters CIT 229 ITR 548 (Ker) • CIT V Precision Finance P. Ltd &Finlease P Ltd, • Mc Dowell & Co 208 ITR 465 (Cal) • • KNC Chandrashekhar V ACIT SumatiDayal • LN Dalmia 66 TTJ 355 (ITAT Bangalore) • • CIT V United Commercial and Sunil Siddhartha Bhai V CiT Industrial Co. Pvt Ltd 187 ITR • CIT Durga Prasad More 596 (Cal) • CIT V Durga Prasad More • ITO V K Jayaraman • (1…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…SC) • Shankar Industries V CIT 114 • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) ITR 689 (Cal) • Dhanlakshmi Steel Re-rolling CIT(A) has differentiated the Mills V CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) • Malabar Agricultural Co Ltd V following judgments: • Nova Promoters CIT 229 ITR 548 (Ker) • CIT V Precision Finance P. Ltd &Finlease P Ltd, • Mc Dowell & Co 208 ITR 465 (Cal) • • KNC Chandrashekhar V ACIT SumatiDayal • LN Dalmia 66 TTJ 355 (ITAT Bangalore) • • CIT V United Commercial and Sunil Siddhartha Bhai V CiT Industrial Co. Pvt Ltd 187 ITR • CIT Durga Prasad More 596 (Cal) • CIT V Durga Prasad More • ITO V K Jayaraman • (1…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…SC) • Shankar Industries V CIT 114 • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) ITR 689 (Cal) • Dhanlakshmi Steel Re-rolling CIT(A) has differentiated the Mills V CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) • Malabar Agricultural Co Ltd V following judgments: • Nova Promoters CIT 229 ITR 548 (Ker) • CIT V Precision Finance P. Ltd &Finlease P Ltd, • Mc Dowell & Co 208 ITR 465 (Cal) • • KNC Chandrashekhar V ACIT SumatiDayal • LN Dalmia 66 TTJ 355 (ITAT Bangalore) • • CIT V United Commercial and Sunil Siddhartha Bhai V CiT Industrial Co. Pvt Ltd 187 ITR • CIT Durga Prasad More 596 (Cal) • CIT V Durga Prasad More • ITO V K Jayaraman • (1…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…SC) • Shankar Industries V CIT 114 • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) ITR 689 (Cal) • Dhanlakshmi Steel Re-rolling CIT(A) has differentiated the Mills V CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) • Malabar Agricultural Co Ltd V following judgments: • Nova Promoters CIT 229 ITR 548 (Ker) • CIT V Precision Finance P. Ltd &Finlease P Ltd, • Mc Dowell & Co 208 ITR 465 (Cal) • • KNC Chandrashekhar V ACIT SumatiDayal • LN Dalmia 66 TTJ 355 (ITAT Bangalore) • • CIT V United Commercial and Sunil Siddhartha Bhai V CiT Industrial Co. Pvt Ltd 187 ITR • CIT Durga Prasad More 596 (Cal) • CIT V Durga Prasad More • ITO V K Jayaraman • (1…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…SC) • Shankar Industries V CIT 114 • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) ITR 689 (Cal) • Dhanlakshmi Steel Re-rolling CIT(A) has differentiated the Mills V CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP) • Malabar Agricultural Co Ltd V following judgments: • Nova Promoters CIT 229 ITR 548 (Ker) • CIT V Precision Finance P. Ltd &Finlease P Ltd, • Mc Dowell & Co 208 ITR 465 (Cal) • • KNC Chandrashekhar V ACIT SumatiDayal • LN Dalmia 66 TTJ 355 (ITAT Bangalore) • • CIT V United Commercial and Sunil Siddhartha Bhai V CiT Industrial Co. Pvt Ltd 187 ITR • CIT Durga Prasad More 596 (Cal) • CIT V Durga Prasad More • ITO V K Jayaraman • (1…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Regency Property Investments Private Limited (Formerly International Clothing P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Regency Property Tax-3(3)(1),Room No. 609, 6Th Investments Pvt. Ltd., Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (Formerly International Clothing Pvt. Ltd) 77, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Vs. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point,Mumbai –21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Satish Mody, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

…t Income from House Property and Income from Other Sources and further to set off of earlier years business losses against business income of current year disregarding the decision of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 548) wherein it is held that the assessee did not engage in any manufacturing or processing, nor was there any trading activity and hence, as per the provisions of Sec.72(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since there is no business activity carried on by the assessee during the year, the losses of earlier years as well as the unabsorbed depreciation of…

Iss Hicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Rachana AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri E. Shankaran
Section 144Section 68

…) Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT(SC) reported in 107 ITR 938; ii) C.Kant & Co. Vs. CIT(Calcutta) 126 ITR 63; iii) Dhanalakhsmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT(AP) 228 ITR 780; (iv) CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 v) Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(Kerala) 229 ITR 548 8.6 In view of the above decisions, the appellant has to prove all the three conditions i.e. identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. As the appellant could only prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions and failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors, h…

M/S. Rajsadan Overseas Sales(P)Ltd, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

…, CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674, ITO Vs. Sky jet Aviation (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Ahd- TM) 71 ITD 95, CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, Oriental Wire Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 131 ITR 688, Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481 etc.…

Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd

ITA-161/2006HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

…number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression „used‟ should mean actual user 2010:DHC:6288-DB Gelgy Ltd. [133 ITR 884 (Guj.)], Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 548 (Kar).], Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. CIT [267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]). Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, had…