What is CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee may manage tax affairs to attract lower tax as permitted by law, and a genuine sale and leaseback transaction that provides substantial benefit is not a colourable device for tax avoidance.

How many judgments cite CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.?

111 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (284 ITR 619), spanning 2008 to 2025.

CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (284 ITR 619)

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 273/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- “9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. Bikaner, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, C-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…298 ITR 141. (iii) Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (2014) 368 ITR 749. (iv) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. [2015] 59 com455 (Punjab & Haryana) (v) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) (vi) CIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) (vii) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (viii) Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2017] 78 com47 (Allahabad) (ix) Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 393 ITR 386 (Patna) 10 M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. vs ADIT, CPC, Banglore/ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur 11. It may be also worthwhile to submi…

Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, Sonebhadra vs. Dy. CIT, (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:— 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtu…

DCIT CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 965/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.965/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eversendai Construction Private Limited, No. 1 & 2, The Lords, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 032. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacce2174N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 09.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 9 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 41(1)

…ing order, the submission of the learned 6 I.T.A. No. 965/Chny/20 counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Neelkanth Infertility and Ivf Hospital, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CC-1, Gurgaon

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 453/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

M/S. Dpn Spinners P Ltd, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 76/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.76/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Sanat Kumar Raha

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

M/S Chennai Citizen Security Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.34/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Chennai Citizen Security Services Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 12/3, Ii Floor, Jambulingam Street Cpc, Bengaluru. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aaecc 4507H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 25.04.2022

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…