CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

284 ITR 619High Court2006#968 most cited

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.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. · George Williamson Assam · tax planning · tax avoidance · colourable device · sale and leaseback · genuine transaction · lesser tax · business transaction genuineness

Issues it is cited on

specified fundsection 35abbsection 35ddwaiver of loanclarificatory amendmentazadi bachao andolansection 40a(ia)short deduction of taxsection 43b(b)retrospective amendmentsection 80ia(4)section 194h

Judgments citing CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5784/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Dewan Sugar Ltd., Circle-10(1), New Delhi Surya Plaza, 1St Floor, K- 185, Sarai Jullena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3465H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36

…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 vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gau) 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 vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (1999) 157 CTR (Ker) 422 : (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker). After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provi…

Denis Chem Lab Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 2668/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasaddenis Chem Lab Ltd. Acit, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Gidc Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.Cit

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…T vs. Lakhani Rubber Works 326 ITR 415 (P&H)(2010) d) Precision Products vs. ACIT (ITA No.4/Ahd/2011)(Ahd)(2012) e) Sai Consulting Engineers (P) Limited. V. DCIT Circle 8, Abd. ITA No. 2262/Ahd/2007 f) Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Kar) g) George Williamson 284 ITR 619 (Gau) h) Sunil Goel v. ACIT 118 TTJ (Del) 415 i) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited. 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court) j) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court) Denis Chem lab Ltd. vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 k) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka) I) Additional CIT v. Vestas RRB India Limited (2005) 93 TTJ…

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharjee, FCA, ld.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…sessee in support of its contention relied on various following case laws:- • CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508(Del) • CIT Vs.ANZ Information Technology P.Ltd 318 ITR 123(Kar) • CIT Vs. Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Kar) • CIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 284 ITR 619(Gau) • ITAT, Delhi’s order dt. 06-09-2012 and various decisions of Courts, held that the case of assessee in depositing the Employee’s Provident Fund before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) is admissible. 5. The CIT-A after considering the submissions and case laws mentioned hereinabove deleted the addition to Rs.3,48,38,217/-made u/s…

Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6165/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., E- 46/11, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase- Ii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0044L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)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 vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gau) 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 vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (1999) 157 CTR (Ker) 422 : (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker). After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provi…

Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., बनधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Maker Tower E, 7Th Floor, Income Tax-6, Vs. A Wing- Cuff Parade Mumbai- 612, Aayakar Bhavan, 400005 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabcd7169H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri Arvind Sonde प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 3.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 20.3.2015, Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai Under Section 263, Setting Aside The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 20.3.2013 For Passing It Afresh. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ground No.1 (I) The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3, (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit) Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Oy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3(3), Mumbai (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…T V/s Zuari Finance Ltd. and Another – 271 ITR 538(Bom); viii) CIT V/s v. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. - - 308 ITR 243(Guj); 8 I . T . A . N o . 2 7 4 8 / M u m / 2 0 1 5 ix) CIT V/s Cosmo Films Ltd. - - 338 ITR 266 (Del); x) CIT V/s George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. - 265 ITR 626(Guw); xi) Bharti Hexacom Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 68 taxmann.Com 357 (Del-Trib) xii) IClCI Bank Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITA Nos.3643 & 3644/Mum/2001; xiii) SICOM Ltd. v. JCIT [2013]40 taxmann.com 469 (Mumbai - Trib.) xiv) Parle Soft Drinks (P.) Ltd.v. JCIT[2015]63 taxmann.com 338 (Mum- Trib.) 8. On the other hand, the ld.CIT DR after referring to…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…m transaction. i) Aradhana Beverages & Foods Co. P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 21 taxmann.com 135 (Del.) ii) CIT v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: 243 CTR 235 (Del.): SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed in CC 21452/2011. iii) CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. 265 ITR 626 (Gau) iv) CIT vs Bihariji Construction (India) Ltd. 289 ITR 303 (Gau) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 118 of 484 v) CIT vs Lazor Syntex Ltd. Income Tax Application No. 11 of 1999 (rendered on 11 Jun 2007) (…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cosmo Films Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1404/2008HC Delhi18 Jul 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Ms Suruchi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Mr Sriram Krishna
Section 260

…ITR 243 (Guj); 4) SBI Home Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax: 280 ITR 6 (Cal); 5) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zuari Finance Limited and Another: 271 ITR 538; 6) Commissioner of Income-tax v. George Williamson (Assam) Limited: 265 ITR 626 (Gau). ITA No.1404/08 Page No.8 of 21 7. Mr Vohra also referred to the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (A) Bench in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax: (2006) 100 TTJ 833 (Mumbai) where, in an identical case, which also partly involved the Haryana State Electricit…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

ITA-1063/2006HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…me 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 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Modipon Ltd

ITA - 78 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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 Cauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. ln the said judgment the Division Bench of the Cauhafi High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South lndia Corporation Ltd: (200O) 242 ITR ll4. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd

ITA - 475 / 2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008
Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…eme 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 2008:DHC:2959-DB ITA 475/2007 Page 5 of 8 that the amendments…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. P M Electronics Ltd

ITA/475/2007HC Delhi03 Nov 2008
Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…eme 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 2008:DHC:2959-DB ITA 475/2007 Page 5 of 8 that the amendments…