CIT v. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd.

182 ITR 216High Court#19691 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD., DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3800/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. JK Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

…under section 37 of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the Learned AR on the following decisions: Prakash Cotton Mills vs. CIT: 201 ITR 684 (SC) - CIT vs. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd.: 161 ITR 327 (Pat) - CIT vs. Grand Cashew Corporation: 182 ITR 216 (Ker) - Jama Auto Industries vs. CIT: 299 ITR 92 (P&H) - CIT vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.: 55 Taxman 392 (Cal) - CIT vs. Todi Tea Col. Ltd: 239 ITR 28 (Cal.) - G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT: 59 TTJ 757 (Ahd.) - CIT vs. Deversons Industries Ltd.: 104 ITD 171 (Ahd.) - 45. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below on the issue, in vi…

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. RATANSINGH RATHORD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5297/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chandra VijayFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Sejpal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 24

…civil contract entered into by the assessee with MCGM. Therefore the amount was paid as damages on account of breach of contract. It is not a penalty for violation of any statutory provisions. Hon'ble Kerala HC in the case of CIT Vs. Grand Cashew Corporation, 182 ITR 216 held that the liability to pay damages on account of breach of contract is an allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Shantilal P. Ltd. 144 ITR 57, wherein it was held that any amount incurred by the assessee on account of non-fulfillment of business contract for reasons be…

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. RATANSINGH M,.RATHOD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3717/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chandra VijayFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Sejpal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 24

…civil contract entered into by the assessee with MCGM. Therefore the amount was paid as damages on account of breach of contract. It is not a penalty for violation of any statutory provisions. Hon'ble Kerala HC in the case of CIT Vs. Grand Cashew Corporation, 182 ITR 216 held that the liability to pay damages on account of breach of contract is an allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Shantilal P. Ltd. 144 ITR 57, wherein it was held that any amount incurred by the assessee on account of non-fulfillment of business contract for reasons be…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…nder section 37 of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the Learned AR on the following decisions: − Prakash Cotton Mills vs. CIT: 201 ITR 684 (SC) − CIT vs. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd.: 161 ITR 327 (Pat) − CIT vs. Grand Cashew Corporation: 182 ITR 216 (Ker) − Jama Auto Industries vs. CIT: 299 ITR 92 (P&H) − CIT vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.: 55 Taxman 392 (Cal) − CIT vs. Todi Tea Col. Ltd: 239 ITR 28 (Cal.) − G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT: 59 TTJ 757 (Ahd.) − CIT vs. Deversons Industries Ltd.: 104 ITD 171 (Ahd.) 45. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below on the issue, in view…

CIT v. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. (182 ITR 216) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax