CIT v. George Oakes Ltd.

303 ITR 357High Court2008#10942 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

prescribedcompanysection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomeinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. George Oakes Ltd.

M/S. COROMANDEL SUGARS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3391/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…ion and condition and are, therefore, usually not included in the cost of inventories.” As pointed out by ld.counsel for the assessee, this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Oakes Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 357, wherein Hon’ble High Court has considered the AS-2 issued by ICAI for valuation of inventory and upheld the same by observing as under:- “4. Heard the counsel. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India by its Accounting Standard AS 2 (Valuation of Inventory), has prescribed the standard for valuation of inventory. According to this standard…

M/S. COROMANDEL SUGARS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3390/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…ion and condition and are, therefore, usually not included in the cost of inventories.” As pointed out by ld.counsel for the assessee, this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. George Oakes Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 357, wherein Hon’ble High Court has considered the AS-2 issued by ICAI for valuation of inventory and upheld the same by observing as under:- “4. Heard the counsel. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India by its Accounting Standard AS 2 (Valuation of Inventory), has prescribed the standard for valuation of inventory. According to this standard…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DIT (I.T), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…n consonance with the decision of Jurisdictional High Court cannot be erroneous so as to justify revision u's 263 of the Act. The assessee also relied uponthe following judgments (i). CIT Vs Simpson Co. Ltd. [230 ITR 749 (Mad)] (ii). CIT Vs. George Oakes Ltd [197 ITR 288 (Mad)] (iii). Sasson J David & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT [118 ITR 261 (SC)] (iv). Indian Cable Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workman AIR 1972 SC 2195 (v). Atherton vs. British Insulated &Helsby Cables Ltd. 10 TC 155, 191 H.L (vi). CIT Vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [154 ITR 647 (Cal.)) (vii). K Ravindranathan Nair vs CIT (247 ITR 178 (SC)]  The CBDT Circular/Letter doe…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 6(3),

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…are in favour of the assesse viz., Ambala Cantt Electric Supply Corp. Ltd [133 ITR 343 (P&H), K. Ravindranath Nair [247 ITR 178 (SC)], Empire Jute Co. Ltd., [124 ITR 1 (SC)], Western India Oil Distribution Co. Ltd., [77 ITR 140 (Bom)], Simson & Company Ltd., [230 ITR 794 (Mad)], Health & Co. (P.) Ltd., [114 ITR 605, Single Tea & Agricultural Industries Ltd 250 ITR 274 (Cal.)] and Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., [77 ITR 410 P & H)] and requested the same be adopted in the case of assessee also. 88. Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the liabilities were not ascertained the…

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 842/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

For Respondent: 13.11.2019
Section 234C

…nd hence, the Revenue preferred a Tax Case Appeal, in this Court. At the time, when deduction was made, there were two binding decisions of this Court, viz., CIT v. George Oakes Ltd. [1992] 197 ITR 288/61 Taxman 225 (Mad.) and CIT v. Simpson & Co. Ltd. [1998] 230 ITR 794/[1997] 91 Taxman 115 (Mad.). Thus, he deducted expenditure incurred, by way of payments made for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Sections 207 and 208 of the Income-Tax Act, pressed into service are extracted hereunder: '207. Tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year, in accordance with the provisions of Section 208 to 219 (both incl…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SRF LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2853/DEL/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Block-C, Sector - Acit, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/03/2012 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1995-96, In Respect Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Levied By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.3,43,70,911/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves To Amend Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground Of Appeal At Any Tiem Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 30

…disallowance of VRS expenditure of Rs. 4,44,02,424/-, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that claim of deduction was allowable in view of CIT vs. Assam Oil Company Limited (1985), 154 ITR 647 (Cal.) and CIT Vs. Simpson and Company Limited (1998) 230 ITR 794 (Mad.), however, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the provisions of section 35 DDA, which was inserted w.e.f. 01/04/2001, allowed 1/5th of the expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the applicability of section 35DDA in the year in question was debatable as the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs.…

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…xpenditure incurred on account of payment made for the VRS by the assessee in view of the binding decisions of the Hon 'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. George Oakes Ltd. [1992] 197 ITR 288 (Mad.) and OT v. Simpson and Co. Ltd. (No.2) [1998]230 ITR 794 (Mad.). In both the decisions, it was clearly laid down by the Hon 'ble jurisdictional High Court that payments to employees under the VRS were in the nature of business expenditure and was deductible under section 37. Therefore, till the introduction of new provisions under section 35DDA, the assessee could have estimated the income legitimately…

CA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 6(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8376/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘के’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “K” BENCH सव"ी ए. डी.जैन, "याियक सद"य , एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 वष" CA (India) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ACIT – 10(1) Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower Aayakar Bhavan Plot-C-62, G-Block,BKC Vs Mumbai. Bandra (E)Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D आयक…

ACIT CIR 10(1), MUMBAI vs. CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWAN AS C.A. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8106/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘के’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “K” BENCH सव"ी ए. डी.जैन, "याियक सद"य , एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 वष" CA (India) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ACIT – 10(1) Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower Aayakar Bhavan Plot-C-62, G-Block,BKC Vs Mumbai. Bandra (E)Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D आयक…

CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P LTD`,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8218/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘के’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “K” BENCH सव"ी ए. डी.जैन, "याियक सद"य , एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 वष" CA (India) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ACIT – 10(1) Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower Aayakar Bhavan Plot-C-62, G-Block,BKC Vs Mumbai. Bandra (E)Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D आयक…

CIT v. George Oakes Ltd. (303 ITR 357) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax