CIT v. Indian Express Newspapers Madurai Pvt. Ltd.

238 ITR 70High Court1999#11336 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian Express Newspapers Madurai Pvt. Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…o on the board of directors of the assessee-company Since the entire unit of the Ramoji HUF has been taken over on a going- Concern basis, there could be no case for completion. Also, in the case of CIT V/s Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) Pvt Ltd. (1999) (238 ITR 70) the madras court held that: "It is well settled that the corporate veil of a company can be lifted for the purpose of ascertaining the real character of a transaction, if that transaction was a fraudulent or sham or was intended to evade payment of tax. While legitimate tax avoidance is always permissible, devices adopted to evade payment of tax,…

Synergy Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Mumbai

ITA 4841/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4841/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…in our considered opinion, this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by this judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Conn and respectfully following the same, this issue is decided against the assesses ". CIT Vs. Indian Express Newspaper (Madurai) P. Ltd. 238 ITR 70 (Mad). - Interest paid on amount borrowed by the assessee company and transferred to the investment company floated by it which in turn transferred to same to an associate company of the assessee company which was engaged in the construction of a building was held not deductible because the borrowed amount was not used for the purposes of the asse…

Dilavarhusain R. Farasta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.140/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.DR

…perverse. In such a case, the High Court may interfere. If two views are possible, even if the High Court is of the other view, it cannot interfere with the view taken by the taxing authority. [Para 6]. 8.2.5 In the case of CIT vs. Indian Express News Papers 238 ITR 70 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under – The fact that the money was not paid directly but was shown as having been invested in the subsidiary company was not decisive of the true character of the transact/oh. The mere fact that the investment company was a distinct legal entity did not by itself establish that the purported investment…

M/S Loesche India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 295/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 17(2)(iv)Section 37Section 37(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla , Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Loesche India Pvt. Ltd., M-38/1, vs. Addl. CIT, Range-15, Intl. Business Centre, Middle Circle, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN- AAACL0980H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. D. Subramanian & Sh. Alkesh Babbar, CA Revenue by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2018 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-V, Delhi date…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…ficiaries have to be considered. The Assessing Officer has to lift the corporate veil and bring out the actual purpose of the actions of the assessee company to light. This has also been upheld in the case of CIT vs Indian Express Newspapers Madurai Pvt. Ltd. 238 ITR 70 (Mad.), Thus, the case of the Assessing Officer is that the group companies were managed by a few, who could manage the affairs to reduce the tax burden through colourable devices. 5.1..9 On the other hand, to support its claim, it was explained that the appellant company is the flagship company of the Ruia Group and during the financial year: 20…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…ficiaries have to be considered. The Assessing Officer has to lift the corporate veil and bring out the actual purpose of the actions of the assessee company to light. This has also been upheld in the case of CIT vs Indian Express Newspapers Madurai Pvt. Ltd. 238 ITR 70 (Mad).” Thus, the case of the Assessing Officer is that the group companies were managed by a few, who could manage the affairs to reduce the tax burden through colourable devices. 6. On the other hand, to support its claim, it was explained that the appellant company is the flagship company of the Ruia Group and during the financial year 2008-20…

Sh Chand Rattan Bagri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5

ITA 2125/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishichand Rattan Bagri, Acit, 4318/3, Ansari Road, Circle-3(1), Vs. Darya Ganj, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan:Aagpb1216K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Chand Rattan Bagri, Acit, 4318/3, Ansari Road, Circle-3(1), Vs. Darya Ganj, New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan:Aagpb1216K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…etely avoid the tax payable under the law." 3.3 Further, the Assessing Officer referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) and CIT vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Madhurai) P Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 70; decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 77. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case K. Ramasamy vs. CIT (2003) 162 ITR 358. The Assessing Officer concluded that a sum of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- shown by the assessee as capital receipt is ta…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…g goods to independent, unrelated third parties as well. Therefore, no question arises of lifting of corporate veil as alleged by the assessing officer. [Refer: Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT: 73 ITR 702 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) (P) Ltd.: 238 ITR 70 (Mad)]. He argued that Further, as long as the appellant acted in a bonafide manner and it was not a case of fraudulent or sham transaction, the Revenue would not, on account of commercial considerations be empowered to lift the corporate veil even if an incidental tax advantage accrues to the appellant. He further referred to the various decision…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…duction of interest under s. 36(1)(iii) on the amount borrowed which is not used for the purpose of the business but is given to the partners for their personal use. 2.3.3. Similarly in the case of CIT v / s. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) P. LTD.(1999) 238 ITR 70 (Mad), the Hon'ble High Court has held that the fact that the money was not paid directly, but was shown as having been invested in the subsidiary company is not decisive of the true character of the transaction. The mere fact that A Ltd. is a distinct legal entity does not by itself establish that the purported investment was a genuine investment…