CIT v. India Cement

241 ITR 62High Court2000#20057 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. India Cement

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - 14(2) (Erstwhile Addl. CIT. Range 8(2)), Mumbai

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

ITA 4826/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…nst public policy to allow under one statute the benefit of deduction of expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Cements Ltd (2000) 241 ITR 62 (Mad) wherein it was held that while making the assessment under the Act, the authorities under the Act are not required to close their eyes to the infraction of other applicable laws by the assessee and render such other laws and the penal provisions therein meaningless by allowing a trader or an owner of a business to reap the benefit of the vio…

Seco Warwick Allied P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is set aside and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 197/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Seco Warwick Allied Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax-10(2) 05Th Floor, Amfotech It Park, 05Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Wagle Estate, Midc, Thane Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, (West)-400 604 Mumbai-400 013 Appellant Respondent .. Pan No.Aaaca8938Q The Deputy Commissioner Seco Warwick Allied Pvt. Of Income Tax Ltd. Allied House, 1 St Road, Vs. 4Th 455, Floor, Aayakar Chembur Mubai-400 071 Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 349Section 37(1)

…er Central Government is ₹ 18 lacs for the year under consideration and balance sum of ₹ 7,32,880/- is excess of sanctioned limit and hence, he disallowed the same relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Cement (2000) 241 ITR 62 (Mad.). Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the AO by relying ITA Nos. 197/Mum/2015 &. 7307/Mum/2014 SECO Warwick Allied Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 10-11) on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramben A. Thanawala V. Jyoti Ltd. (1957) 27 Comp. Cas. 105, 107; AIR 1958 Bom. 214 and also…

DCIT14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Seco Warwick Allied P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is set aside and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7307/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Seco Warwick Allied Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax-10(2) 05Th Floor, Amfotech It Park, 05Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Wagle Estate, Midc, Thane Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, (West)-400 604 Mumbai-400 013 Appellant Respondent .. Pan No.Aaaca8938Q The Deputy Commissioner Seco Warwick Allied Pvt. Of Income Tax Ltd. Allied House, 1 St Road, Vs. 4Th 455, Floor, Aayakar Chembur Mubai-400 071 Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 349Section 37(1)

…er Central Government is ₹ 18 lacs for the year under consideration and balance sum of ₹ 7,32,880/- is excess of sanctioned limit and hence, he disallowed the same relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Cement (2000) 241 ITR 62 (Mad.). Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the AO by relying ITA Nos. 197/Mum/2015 &. 7307/Mum/2014 SECO Warwick Allied Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 10-11) on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramben A. Thanawala V. Jyoti Ltd. (1957) 27 Comp. Cas. 105, 107; AIR 1958 Bom. 214 and also…

Sh. Rahul Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Rahul Aggarwal, G-368, Dda Flats, Pocket-2, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi Pan : Aajpa3841J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gopal Nathani, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/11/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxvii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11 Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rved that grant of custom or income tax refund is automatic and as per rules and in accordance with law and any such payment made was not allowable being illegal relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. India Cement Ltd. reported in 241 ITR 62. In view of above, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire commission of Rs.12,82,840/-. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed part relief to the assessee and sustained disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- with findings as under: “9. As per the appellant’s written submission dated 11.11.2013, Rs.1,44,537/- was paid to Shri Daulat…

CIT v. India Cement (241 ITR 62) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax