CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.

190 ITR 643High Court#23325 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…ssessment year, the profit was more than the investment and advance, those came only out of the profit. The actual financial liquidity position on the relevant date has to be established by the assessee. 14.7 Yet again in CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. 190 ITR 643 (All.), B.P. Jeevan Reddy C.J. (as his Lordship then was) relying upon his earlier decision in H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.'s case that the assessee-company was not entitled to the allowance of interest. 14.8 In Veecumsees v. CIT, 220 ITR 185 (SC) ; The Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that deduction for payment of interest on the loans raised for…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…'ble Orissa High Court upheld the Tribunal's order in which the action U/s 263 of the Act of the Commissioner was justified even though there was an exhaustive enquiry by the ITO before making assessment. (v) In the case of CIT V/s HR Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd [190 ITR 643 (All)] the Hon'ble Court has held that the Commissioner does have the power to set aside the assessment order and sent matter for fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary and that the order of the ITO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (vi) In the case of Mahalakshmi Liquor Promoters (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner…

P.Sundararajan, Avanashi vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…assessment year, the profit was more than the investment and advance, those came only out of the profit. The actual financial liquidity position on the relevant date has to be established by the assessee. 14.7 Yet again in CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. 190 ITR 643 (All.), B.P. Jeevan Reddy C.J. (as his Lordship then was) relying upon his earlier decision in H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.'s case that the assessee-company was not entitled to the allowance of interest. 14.8 In Veecumsees v. CIT, 220 ITR 185 (SC) ; The Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that deduction for payment of interest on the loans raised f…