CIT v. Gannon Dunkarlay and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

243 ITR 646High Court2000#20068 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Gannon Dunkarlay and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok M. Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14Section 14ASection 40ASection 56Section 57Section 57(3)

…ould not establish that interest paid was used to earn interest income and has disallowed the entire amount. Learned CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dunkerly & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (243 ITR 646). However, learned CIT(A) found that the said decision was with reference to the company in liquidation and certain expenditure was made by the official liquidator. Hence, it was held that since the expenditure was to protect and preserve the source that yielded income, it had a nexus with interest income earned. Furthermore, learned CIT(A) held…

Vaaya Renewable Energy (Purna) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)`, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…il proceeding depends upon the nature and purpose of the civil proceeding in relation to assessee's business and cannot be affected by the final outcome of that business. ITA Nos.535/Mum/2018 16 Vaaya Renewable Energy (PURNA) Pvt. Ltd. 2.12. Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 646 (Mad.), CIT vs Administrator General Of Madras (1998) 234 ITR 351 (Mad.), CIT vs Patiala Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 75 (P & H), Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturing Ltd. 179 ITR 302 (P & H), Palani Sir Murgun Textiles Ltd. vs ACIT (2002) 254 ITR 333 (Mad.) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the case of Gannon Dunkarlay and…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…eeding depends upon the nature and purpose of the civil proceeding in relation to assessee's business and cannot be affected by the final outcome of that business. 26 Hiranandani Akruti JV 3.3. In the case of CIT vs Gannon Dunkarlay and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 646 (Mad.), CIT vs Administrator General Of Madras (1998) 234 ITR 351 (Mad.), CIT vs Patiala Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 75 (P & H), Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturing Ltd. 179 ITR 302 (P & H), Palani Sir Murgun Textiles Ltd. vs ACIT (2002) 254 ITR 333 (Mad.) decided the issue in favour of Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Madras High Court, where t…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…n prosecuting a civil proceeding depends upon the nature and purpose of the civil proceeding in relation to assessee's business and cannot be affected by the final outcome of that business. 6.1. In the case of CIT vs Gannon Dunkarlay and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 646 (Mad.), CIT vs Administrator General Of Madras (1998) 234 ITR 351 (Mad.), CIT vs Patiala Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 75 (P & H), Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturing Ltd. 179 ITR 302 (P & H), Palani Sir Murgun Textiles Ltd. vs ACIT (2002) 254 ITR 333 (Mad.) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the case of Gannon Dunkarlay and Co.…