CIT v. Indian 10 Noble Consolidated Glazings Ltd. v. Dy.CIT Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd.

68 ITR 200Supreme Court of India1968#14343 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian 10 Noble Consolidated Glazings Ltd. v. Dy.CIT Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Aashikyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9025/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 9025/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs. M/s Aashiyana Civil Contractors Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., R/o 302-304, Harsha Corner Noida Complex, Ghazipur, New Delhi-110096 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECA4833G Assessee by : None Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA (LOA filed) Revenue by : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by Revenue against…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ennoble Construction

ITA/383/2016HC Karnataka20 Jul 2022

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260Section 260A

…no need to consult the statute book; such a question can be answered just by turning the pages of evidentiary record of the Assessment Proceedings concerned. Therefore, the said question is miles away 4 68 ITR 200 (207) 5 273 ITR 50 - 15 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 from the precincts of Section 260A which employs the expression ‘substantial question of law’. C. AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS DISCHARGE: (i) As already mentioned above, the burden of proving the expenditure incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose o…

DCIT, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sejal Exports (India), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5062/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…vely, reference may be made to Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [82 ITR 547], Rameshwar Prasad Bagla vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. [87 ITR 421], Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. [68 ITR 200] and K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [247 ITR 178]. 8. The legal position in this regard may be summed up by reiterating that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and it is beyond the power of the High Court in the exercise of its reference jurisdiction to reconsider such findings on a reappraisal of t…

Noble Consolidated Glazings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Kumar, Dy. CITFor Respondent: 22.06.2017
Section 143(3)

…in Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 627 (Ker), wherein the Hon’ble Court, following decisions in CIT v. Indian 10 Noble Consolidated Glazings Ltd. v. Dy.CIT Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC) and CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 200 (SC), restored back the matter to the file of the tribunal for factual determination as to accrual or otherwise of the amounts withheld. In sum: 5. The moot question arising in the present case is whether there has been an accrual as income during the year of the sums retained by the assessee’s customers to any extent. The same is in respect of c…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd

ITTA/383/2016HC Telangana17 Feb 2017

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai vs. Prakash C. Kanugo, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

ITA 5223/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Anandi VermaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…e court is to restore the matter back to the tribunal, stating its reasons, as clarified by the hon’ble court in Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 627 (Ker), following the binding decisions by the apex court in CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Mollasses & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC). The authorities on the law in the matter could in fact be multiplied. Then, again, we wonder, rather than reading down the provision, so as to operate to negate the mandatory requirement of the section, defeating the legislative intent, which, as explained by the hon’ble cour…

M/S Ganapathy & Co.Bangalore vs. Commr.Income Tax, Bangalore

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-001964-001964 - 2008Supreme Court18 Jan 2016
Section 256(2)Section 35Section 40A(2)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1964 OF 2008 M/S GANAPATHY & CO., BANGALORE ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX BANGALORE ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The High Court of Karnataka by the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2007 had answered the questions referred to it for its opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal upon grant of leave…