CIT v. Indra Industries

248 ITR 338Supreme Court of India2001#10433 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Indra Industries

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 600/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: \nShri Anthony DsonzaFor Respondent: \nShri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 147Section 271

…A No. 2976/Del2022 dated\n20/06/2023)\n2. DashrathbhaiShivabhai Chaudhary Vs ITO (|TAT Ahmedabad)\n3. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)\n4. CIT Vs S.V. AngidiChettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC)\n5. CIT VS Divine Leasing & Finance Limited (2001) 248 ITR 338 (Delhi\nHC)\n6. BrijBhushan Lal Praduman Kumar Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC)\n7. Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd V/s ITO 338 |TR 51 (Delhi HC)\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of\nRs.11,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant is unwarranted, since\nthe entire cash deposited with the bank account cannot be treated a…

KURUKSHETRA EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD,REWARI vs. DCIT CIRCLE, REWARI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ticular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. Reliance was placed on following binding judicial precedents:- - UCO Bank vs CIT 237 ITR 889(SC) - Keshavji Ravji and Company vs. CIT: 183 ITR1, 17 (SC); - CIT vs. Indra Industries: 248 ITR 338 (SC); - CIT vs. Honda Cycles Pvt. Ltd. & ors. 228 ITR 463(SC); - CCE vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [2008 13 SCC 1](SC) So appeal may be accepted. 18. Learned representative for department submitted that the Learned AO disallowed the impugned claim of depreciation following the CBDT circular no. 9/2014 dated 23/04/2014. Hon’ble Bombay High…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…rd Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) that the impugned mark-to-market loss is allowable to be recognized in respect of the outstanding derivative contracts pertaining to regular course of business. Hon'ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Indra Industries (2010) 248 ITR 338 (SC) also holds that Board’s circular are binding only on the departmental authorities. 25. Coming to sec. 115JB computation relevant to the impugned MAT loss, tribunal’s co-ordinate bench in Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT ITA No.813/Kol/2018 dated 05.09.2018 holds that such a provision is not a contingent liability and not liable…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…rd Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) that the impugned mark-to-market loss is allowable to be recognized in respect of the outstanding derivative contracts pertaining to regular course of business. Hon'ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Indra Industries (2010) 248 ITR 338 (SC) also holds that Board’s circular are binding only on the departmental authorities. 25. Coming to sec. 115JB computation relevant to the impugned MAT loss, tribunal’s co-ordinate bench in Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT ITA No.813/Kol/2018 dated 05.09.2018 holds that such a provision is not a contingent liability and not liable…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…rd Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) that the impugned mark-to-market loss is allowable to be recognized in respect of the outstanding derivative contracts pertaining to regular course of business. Hon'ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Indra Industries (2010) 248 ITR 338 (SC) also holds that Board’s circular are binding only on the departmental authorities. 25. Coming to sec. 115JB computation relevant to the impugned MAT loss, tribunal’s co-ordinate bench in Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT ITA No.813/Kol/2018 dated 05.09.2018 holds that such a provision is not a contingent liability and not liable…

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 3565/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…of these sections. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Usgaonkar, appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee, also drew our attention to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indra Industries, reported in [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC). It is a three Bench Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the circulars issued by Commissioner of Sale Tax not binding on assessee or Court, however, binding on the Department. In the case on hand, in our view, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the learned appellate Tr…

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 3564/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…of these sections. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Usgaonkar, appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee, also drew our attention to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indra Industries, reported in [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC). It is a three Bench Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the circulars issued by Commissioner of Sale Tax not binding on assessee or Court, however, binding on the Department. In the case on hand, in our view, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the learned appellate Tr…

ELVE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

…That is, the said Circular is in conformity with the law. The same cannot even otherwise overrule the law as explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Orient (Goa) (P.) Ltd.(supra) with reference to the decision in CST vs. Indra Industries [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC), and which is even otherwise trite law (refer: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (in Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 1999 dated 14.10.2008). The subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular is thus, under the circumstances, of little assistance to the assessee. In the facts of the present case, the assessee claims lik…

ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6229/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

…That is, the said Circular is in conformity with the law. The same cannot even otherwise overrule the law as explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Orient (Goa) (P.) Ltd.(supra) with reference to the decision in CST vs. Indra Industries [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC), and which is even otherwise trite law (refer: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (in Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 1999 dated 14.10.2008). The subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular is thus, under the circumstances, of little assistance to the assessee. In the facts of the present case, the assessee claims lik…

ELVE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4108/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

…That is, the said Circular is in conformity with the law. The same cannot even otherwise overrule the law as explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Orient (Goa) (P.) Ltd.(supra) with reference to the decision in CST vs. Indra Industries [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC), and which is even otherwise trite law (refer: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (in Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 1999 dated 14.10.2008). The subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular is thus, under the circumstances, of little assistance to the assessee. In the facts of the present case, the assessee claims lik…

CIT v. Indra Industries (248 ITR 338) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax