CIT v. Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd.

183 ITR 327High Court#19612 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd.

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1723/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri S.P.ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…es vs ACIT (40 taxmann.com 144) 14 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. 13. Hon’ble Madras High court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Unilver Ltd. 42 taxmann.com 132 14. Hon’ble Mumbai High court judgment in the case of CIT vs Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd. 183 ITR 327 15. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tide Water Oil Co(India) Ltd vs CIT (353 ITR 300). 10. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that if rectification u/s.154 is accepted by Hon’ble Tribunal then the AO amy be directed to follow the ITAT direction as per para No.64 of the ITA No.2229/Hyd/2011 for AY 2007-08. 11. The ld. DR relied…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

ITA 1846/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…• AAR in National Fertilizers Ltd., In Re (142 Taxman 5) has held that when other income cannot be considered as derived from 801 unit similarly other corporate office expenditure should also not be allocated to 801 unit. • CIT Vs Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd 183 ITR 327 (Bom) it was held in the context of Section 80J that for the purpose of deduction only liability pertaining to the unit should be considered and not the overall liability of the Appellant • Tide Water Oil Co (India) Ltd Vs CIT 353 ITR 300 (Cal) held that no expenditure at the corporate level which is remotely or indirectly related should be taken…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

ITA 1845/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…• AAR in National Fertilizers Ltd., In Re (142 Taxman 5) has held that when other income cannot be considered as derived from 801 unit similarly other corporate office expenditure should also not be allocated to 801 unit. • CIT Vs Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd 183 ITR 327 (Bom) it was held in the context of Section 80J that for the purpose of deduction only liability pertaining to the unit should be considered and not the overall liability of the Appellant • Tide Water Oil Co (India) Ltd Vs CIT 353 ITR 300 (Cal) held that no expenditure at the corporate level which is remotely or indirectly related should be taken…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

ITA 1844/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…• AAR in National Fertilizers Ltd., In Re (142 Taxman 5) has held that when other income cannot be considered as derived from 801 unit similarly other corporate office expenditure should also not be allocated to 801 unit. • CIT Vs Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd 183 ITR 327 (Bom) it was held in the context of Section 80J that for the purpose of deduction only liability pertaining to the unit should be considered and not the overall liability of the Appellant • Tide Water Oil Co (India) Ltd Vs CIT 353 ITR 300 (Cal) held that no expenditure at the corporate level which is remotely or indirectly related should be taken…

CIT v. Kanmani Metals & Alloys Ltd. (183 ITR 327) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax