What is CIT v. General Insurance Corporation authority for?

The Supreme Court case CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) is cited for the proposition that it dealt with the issue of bonus shares, and therefore may not be applicable to cases involving the increase of authorized share capital.

How many judgments cite CIT v. General Insurance Corporation?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232), spanning 2010 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. General Insurance Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 271AAC(1), Section 35D(2), Section 68, Section 143(3).

CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232)

ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEUZEN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1511/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 68

…the five successive previous years" had been substituted]?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232 SC), as the decision was given in respect of issue of bonus shares whereas the assessee has increased its authorized share capital in the present case and hence the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition…

NEUZEN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NAFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1247/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 68

…the five successive previous years" had been substituted]?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232 SC), as the decision was given in respect of issue of bonus shares whereas the assessee has increased its authorized share capital in the present case and hence the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable?" 3 ITA No.1511/Mum/2024 & 1247/Mum/2024 Neuzen Finance Private Limited 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of t…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…logy Ltd (188 Taxman 1) (Delhi) (e) ACIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd (ITA No. 1789/Kol/2008) (f) DCIT v. Ocwen Financial Solutions P. Ltd(ITA No. 511/Bang/2016) (g) Abbott India Limited v. ACIT (ITA No. 8428/Mum/2011) (h) CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) (SC) 72. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities and in this regard he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited v. CIT dated 27.02.1997. 73. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the assessee has incurred various expenditu…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…logy Ltd (188 Taxman 1) (Delhi) (e) ACIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd (ITA No. 1789/Kol/2008) (f) DCIT v. Ocwen Financial Solutions P. Ltd(ITA No. 511/Bang/2016) (g) Abbott India Limited v. ACIT (ITA No. 8428/Mum/2011) (h) CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) (SC) 72. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities and in this regard he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited v. CIT dated 27.02.1997. 73. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the assessee has incurred various expenditu…

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

ITA 41/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…id for obtaining the valuation certificate required as per the law for buyback of the assessee’s shares. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation, reported in 286 ITR 232, to submit that the expenditure is not capital in nature. 50. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the expenses have been incurred towards professional charges paid for obtaining valuation certificate. This valuation certificate is a requirement as per law in the purpose of valuin…

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

ITA 14/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…id for obtaining the valuation certificate required as per the law for buyback of the assessee’s shares. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation, reported in 286 ITR 232, to submit that the expenditure is not capital in nature. 50. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the expenses have been incurred towards professional charges paid for obtaining valuation certificate. This valuation certificate is a requirement as per law in the purpose of valuin…

DCIT CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARUNA CHANDHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 387/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 56(2)(vii)

…d be no receipt of any property by the shareholder and what is received is only split shares out of her own holding. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs General Insurance Corporation Ltd reported in 286 ITR 232 (SC) which held that issuance of bonus shares by a company does not result in any inflow of fresh funds and nothing came to the shareholders. It was also submitted that the market price of any share after the bonus issue gets reduced almost in proportion to the bonus issue and hence there would be no increase in the market value of shares held by…

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 8952/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 40Section 80I

…Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in AY 1995-96. We notice from the order passed in AY 1995-96 by the co-ordinate bench that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. General insurance Corporation (2006)(286 ITR 232) is allowable as deduction, since the issue of bonus shares is mere reallocation of company’s funds from Reserves to Capital. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 29. Ground no.16 & 17 raised by the revenue are general in nature. 30. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed. Order pronoun…

DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 78/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 154

…evelopment Corporation Ltd [1997] 13 SCL 67 (SC) is only applicable, where increase in authorized capitalis for issuing share capital to be used in Capital Expenditure. Reliance is placed on the following judgments- 8.1. General Life Insurance vs. CIT [2006] 286 ITR 232 Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1991-92 - Whether expenditure incurred in connection with issuance of bonus shares is revenue expenditure - Held, yes 8.2. Navi Mumbai SEZ (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 152 ITD 828 6 Dhabriya Polywood Ltd. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -…

M/S. PODAR EDUCATION NETWORK PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.2 of appeal is allowed

ITA 1629/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1629/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) M/S. Podar Education Network Private Limited, 85, Podar Centre, Parel Post Office Lane, Off.Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012. Pan: Aaccp-2130-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Circle – 1(4), Room No.902, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/10/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…increasing authorized share capital for issue of bonus shares is not in the nature of capital expenditure. To support this contention he placed 3 reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. General Insurance Corporation 286 ITR 232/156 Taxman 96 (SC). To substantiate that authorized share capital was increased for issue of bonus shares, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee of assessee furnished copy of resolution passed in the meeting of shareholders held on 10/11/2014, copy of Board Resolution dated 25/11/2014, list of shareholders eligible for allotment of b…

GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3789/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Section 37(1)

…3.9/Mum/2005); v/(c) (c) Ador Technologies Ltd. vs. DCIT (1 12 TTJ 24)(Pune Trib); (d) M/s. Nimbus Communications Limited. (ITA No. 4244 of 2010)(Bom HC); (e) CIT vs. Essar Oil Limited (ITA No. 92 1 of 2006)(Bom HC); (f) CIT vs. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232)(SC). 17. The learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the departmental authorities submitted that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to indicate that the issuance of IPO was aborted during the year. 18. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the materials o…

M/S SHETRON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails

ITA/515/2013HC Karnataka15 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…rt in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802) would apply to all cases irrespective of difference in facts and would prevail over later judgment of the supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232)? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of metal package and cans. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and claimed deduction of Rs.5 Crores, being the discount on the issue of debentures. It was t…

M/S INCAP CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…urt in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 792) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 798) will not be applicable. According to him, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) wherein it was held that when bonus shares are issued, any expenditure in issue of bonus share should be regarded as revenue expenditure will apply. According to IT(TP)A No.697/Bang/2017 Page 12 of 12 him, there was no change in the capital base of the assessee and therefore the expenditure in question cannot be regarded as capital expenditure…

M/S. GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Great Eastern Energy Circle-10(2), Corporation Ltd, New Delhi Signature Towers-A, 14Th Floor, South City, Nh-8, Gurgaon Pan: Aaacg3345F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…s. He therefore submitted that there is no enduring benefit received by the assessee. The learned authorised representative further submitted that issue squarely covered by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. General Insurance Corp 286 ITR 232 wherein the honourable Supreme Court has also considered and distinguished the decision in case of Punjab State industrial development Corp Ltd 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd 225 ITR 798 for the reason that in the said cases expenditure was incurred for the purpose of increasing company share capital by the issue of fresh shares and there…

M/S. GREAT ESTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3360/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Great Eastern Energy Circle-10(2), Corporation Ltd, New Delhi Signature Towers-A, 14Th Floor, South City, Nh-8, Gurgaon Pan: Aaacg3345F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…s. He therefore submitted that there is no enduring benefit received by the assessee. The learned authorised representative further submitted that issue squarely covered by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. General Insurance Corp 286 ITR 232 wherein the honourable Supreme Court has also considered and distinguished the decision in case of Punjab State industrial development Corp Ltd 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd 225 ITR 798 for the reason that in the said cases expenditure was incurred for the purpose of increasing company share capital by the issue of fresh shares and there…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3310/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Great Eastern Energy Circle-10(2), Corporation Ltd, New Delhi Signature Towers-A, 14Th Floor, South City, Nh-8, Gurgaon Pan: Aaacg3345F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…s. He therefore submitted that there is no enduring benefit received by the assessee. The learned authorised representative further submitted that issue squarely covered by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. General Insurance Corp 286 ITR 232 wherein the honourable Supreme Court has also considered and distinguished the decision in case of Punjab State industrial development Corp Ltd 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd 225 ITR 798 for the reason that in the said cases expenditure was incurred for the purpose of increasing company share capital by the issue of fresh shares and there…

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

…disallowance of registry fees paid for increase in share capital Ld. Counsel for the 40 Asian Business Connection Private Limited assessee submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s General Insurance Corporation 286 ITR 232 only proportionate disallowance of 37% of the expenses ought to have been made by the Ld. A.O since the fresh capital of Rs.37 crores only was issued during the year whereas the alleged amount was paid in increase in authorized capital from Rs.5 crores to Rs.100 crores. 15. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supportin…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA No. 3846/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2007-08] DLF Limited Vs. The Additional C.I.T DLF Centre (9th Floor) Range - 10 Sansad Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACD 3494 N ITA No. 4342/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2007-08] The Additional C.I.T Vs. DLF Limited DLF Centre (9th Floor) Range – 10 New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi PAN : AAACD 3494 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 03.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Ms. Re…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA No. 3846/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2007-08] DLF Limited Vs. The Additional C.I.T DLF Centre (9th Floor) Range - 10 Sansad Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACD 3494 N ITA No. 4342/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2007-08] The Additional C.I.T Vs. DLF Limited DLF Centre (9th Floor) Range – 10 New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi PAN : AAACD 3494 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 03.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Ms. Re…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1290/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. George George Ki.T.A No.1290/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Dr. Rajan Pai, Block No.1B, Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Main Road, Bengaluru .. Respondent Pan : Agbpp2795G Assessee By : Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 12.04.2016 Pronounced On : 29.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III

Section 115RSection 115R(2)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…o a beneficiary was considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Menon HUF (Supra). As per the CIT (A), view taken by the Mumbai bench was supported by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. General Insurance Corporation [286 ITR 232]. He held that when there was an issue of bonus shares, the money remained with company and nothing came to the shareholder. He held that sub-clause (c) of caluse (vii) of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act could not be applied to bonus shares and deleted the addition made by the AO. 05. Now before us, Ld. DR strongly assailing the order o…

CIT v. General Insurance Corporation

What is CIT v. General Insurance Corporation authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. General Insurance Corporation

ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEUZEN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

NEUZEN FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NAFAC, DELHI

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

DCIT CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARUNA CHANDHOK, NEW DELHI

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

M/S. PODAR EDUCATION NETWORK PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

M/S SHETRON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

M/S INCAP CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

M/S. GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

M/S. GREAT ESTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., GURGAON

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE