CIT v. Indian

56 ITR 77Supreme Court of India1965#1612 most cited

What is CIT v. Indian authority for?

For an indivisible business, expenditure cannot be apportioned between exempt and taxable income. Interest expenditure incurred for business purposes is deductible even if it does not immediately result in income.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indian Bank Limited · 56 ITR 77 · Section 36(1)(iii) · Section 10 · interest expenditure deduction · business purpose · exempt income · apportionment of expenditure · indivisible business · income tax deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditurecross objectionsection 10section 250section 14indiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…from one head to another would be completely devoid of merit. 30 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 59. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 77- CIT v/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…from one head to another would be completely devoid of merit. 30 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 59. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 77- CIT v/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…from one head to another would be completely devoid of merit. 30 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 59. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 77- CIT v/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…from one head to another would be completely devoid of merit. 30 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 59. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 77- CIT v/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…from one head to another would be completely devoid of merit. 30 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 59. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 77- CIT v/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as…

Sh. Raj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…ment could not be disallowed as per provisions of s.361(1)(iii) – India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (S.C.); State of Madras vs. GJ Coelbo (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC), Nabadwip Chandra Roy vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam), CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd. (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC) and P.Krishna Menon vs. CIT 35 ITR 48 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. P.Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) distinguished.” 7.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panaji Goa vs. Phil Corpn. Ltd. 244 CTR 526 (Bom.) held as follows : “Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act – Interest on borrowed capital – assessee took loan from over…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…f shares in Group Companies for the purpose of holding controlling interest which was deductible u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee in this respect relied on the Calcutta High Court case of Rajeev Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616, Indian Bank Ltd. 56 ITR 77 (SC), Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation- 242 ITR 450(SC) and Taj Trade and Investment Ltd. of Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai ‘A’ Bench ITA No.3374/M/1994. In view of assessee’s reply about its activity of investment in group companies share for the purpose of controlling interest and allowability of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) , the AO held that that the…

Cni Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4395/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Cni Research Ltd. Dcit-5(1), A/12 Gokul Arcade, Mumbai बनाम/ Sahar Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai-400057 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaccc2842H

Section 14A

…ing from a part of that business is not exigible to tax under the act is not a relevant circumstance." 2.7. In Rajasthan State warehousing Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court after, inter alia, considering its earlier decisions in CIT v. Indian bank Ltd: 56 ITR 77 (SC) and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) laid down the following principles:- "(i) if income of an assessee is derived from various heads of income, he is entitled to claim deduction admissible under the respective head whether or not computation under each head results in taxable income; (ii) if income of an assessee arises under any of the…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…acquisition of the units. While coming to the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in (2009) 310 ITR 421, while considering the following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Indian Bank Limited [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) (para 13) ii. CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 421 (Bom) (para 3) 10 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases iii. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…acquisition of the units. While coming to the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in (2009) 310 ITR 421, while considering the following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Indian Bank Limited [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) (para 13) ii. CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 421 (Bom) (para 3) 10 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases iii. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…acquisition of the units. While coming to the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in (2009) 310 ITR 421, while considering the following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Indian Bank Limited [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC) (para 13) ii. CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 421 (Bom) (para 3) 10 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases iii. McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 20) iv. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC) (para 13) v. Union of…

M/S Embassy Development Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/465/2009HC Karnataka08 Sept 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 43D

…for allowing expenditure under Section 36(iii) of the Act. (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not following the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody reported in 115 ITR 519 and CIT Vs Indian Bank Limited reported in 56 ITR 77 on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Sri.A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and Assessing Authority insofar as disallowing the expenditure with regard to interest for the assessment years referred to a…

CIT vs. Goswamis Credits & Investments Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 603 / 2012HC Delhi16 Oct 2012
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…assessee) a similar order was set aside; the Court had then observed as follows: . ?5. The assessee in support of its contention had relied upon CIT versus Raeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), CIT versus Indian Bank Limited, (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC), CIT versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation versus CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 450 (SC). . 6. The CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have considered the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee to justify their claim why no disallowance was mandated under Section 14A…

CIT vs. Jindal Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 68 / 2012HC Delhi03 Feb 2012
Section 115OSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture for the purpose of business merits to be allowed as a deduction.? . . . 5. The assessee in support of its contention had relied upon CIT versus Raeeva Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), CIT versus Indian Bank Limited, (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC), CIT versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited, (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation versus CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 450 (SC). . 6. The CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal have considered the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee to justify their claim why no disallowance was mandated under Section 14A…

CIT vs. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1024/2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur
Section 14A

…n t'? $-33 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 893/2011 + 1TA1024/2011 CIT Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. standing counsel versus 9 SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 02.12.2011 Ld. counsel for both the parties submit that the matter is covered by decision dated 18.11.2011 of jurisdictional High Court in ITA No.687/2009, Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected cases. 2. By the impugne…

CIT vs. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 1024 / 2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur
Section 14A

…n t'? $-33 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 893/2011 + 1TA1024/2011 CIT Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. standing counsel versus 9 SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 02.12.2011 Ld. counsel for both the parties submit that the matter is covered by decision dated 18.11.2011 of jurisdictional High Court in ITA No.687/2009, Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected cases. 2. By the impugne…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Akm Systems Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 217 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 1 of 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2011 + ITA 687/2009 MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal and Mr Amit Sachdeva For the Respondent/Revenue : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur AND + ITA 112/2010 M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD ... Appellant - versus - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant :…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Icra Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 702 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 1 of 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2011 + ITA 687/2009 MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal and Mr Amit Sachdeva For the Respondent/Revenue : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur AND + ITA 112/2010 M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD ... Appellant - versus - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant :…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vou Investment Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 57 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 1 of 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2011 + ITA 687/2009 MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal and Mr Amit Sachdeva For the Respondent/Revenue : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur AND + ITA 112/2010 M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD ... Appellant - versus - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant :…

Eicher Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 805 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

…ITA 687/09 & Ors Page 1 of 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2011 + ITA 687/2009 MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal and Mr Amit Sachdeva For the Respondent/Revenue : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur AND + ITA 112/2010 M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD ... Appellant - versus - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant :…