CIT v. Gimpex P Ltd.

280 ITR 612High Court2006#20287 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Gimpex P Ltd.

M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Azamgarh vs. ACIT, Range - Azamgarh, Azamgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…learned DR has submitted that the assessee has relied upon the decision of non-jurisdictional High Court whereas the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of KisanSahkariChini Meal 282 ITR 617 as well as Chandpur Sugar Companies Ltd., 280 ITR 612 are binding precedents. He has also relied upon the various decisions as under:- “1. [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC), Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 2. [2000] 243 ITR 192 (Kerela), NanjiTopanbhai& Co. 3 M/s Rajendra Prasad Srivastava 3. [2006] 280 ITR 617 (All.) KisanSahkariChini Mills. Ltd. 4. [2007] 105 ITD 1 (Delhi) (Special Bench), A…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…ts in banks is assessable as income from other sources u/s 56. The ratio of Supreme Court decision in these two cases were applied by various other courts in the cases of CIT V/s Gimpex P Ltd [2004] 268 ITR 377 (Mad); Chandpur Sugar Company Ltd V/s CIT [2006] 280 ITR 612 (All); Ferro Concrete Constructions (I) Pvt Ltd V/s CIT [2007] 290 ITR 713 (MP); CIT V/s Winsome Dyeing a Processing Ltd [2008] 306 ITR 340 (HP) and Shipping Corpn of India Ltd V/s Addl CIT [2012] 020 ITR Trib (332) ITAT, Mumbai. The provisions of the I T Act are also crystal clear. The assessment year under consideration is 2005-06 and by then t…

Rewas Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 758/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr.P.Danial

Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 57

…versus Cochin Shipyard Ltd (Ker) 158 CTR 208, C.I.T V/s Rassii cement Ltd (AP) 232 ITR 554, South India shipping Corporation versus ACIT (Mad) 240 ITR 24, C.LT V/s Kisan Sahakari Genie bills (All) 280 ITR 617, Chanderpaul sugar: company Ltd versus C.LT (All) 280 ITR 612, Bokaro steel Ltd versus CIT (patna) 170 ITR 545, CIT versus Coromandel Siemens Ltd (SC) 234 ITR 412, C.LT versus auto cast Ltd (SC) 248 ITR 110, Consolidated fibers and chemicals Ltd versus CIT (Cal) 273 ITR 353, Skayef Ltd versus DCIT (ITAT, Bangalore) 71 ITD 419, Godavari fertilisers and chemicals Ltd versus CIT (AP) 198 ITR 388 and CIT versus…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Swan Energy Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5442/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjeet Singh () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri. H.N. Singh

Section 143(3)

…hemicals, 273 ITR 253 (Cal), the assessee borrowed funds for constructions of project and invested the surplus amount in short term deposit. The interest income was held as assessable under the head “Business Income.” In the case of Chandanpur Sugar Co. Ltd., 280 ITR 612, (All) interest on short term deposit was held to be assessable under the head “Income from other sources.” In the case of CIT Vs. Lok Holdings 308 ITR 356(Bom), the assessee firm was engaged in the business of development of properties and received advances from intending purchases. The assessee temporarily invested the surplus amounts with bank…