CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (

254 ITR 656High Court2002#14548 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Purvankara Projects Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…considered as part of single business. Thus, if an assessee had different units resulting in positive gross total income, in view of decisions Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (254 ITR 656), CIT vs. Suresh B. Mehta (291 ITR 462) and CIT v. M. Gani And Co. (301 ITR 381), each of the unit had to be separately considered for working out deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB or 80HHC of the Act, once separate accounts were being maintained and there was no interlacing and interdependence. In the present case, the assessee had positive…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Purvankara Projects Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…considered as part of single business. Thus, if an assessee had different units resulting in positive gross total income, in view of decisions Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (254 ITR 656), CIT vs. Suresh B. Mehta (291 ITR 462) and CIT v. M. Gani And Co. (301 ITR 381), each of the unit had to be separately considered for working out deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB or 80HHC of the Act, once separate accounts were being maintained and there was no interlacing and interdependence. In the present case, the assessee had positive…

Ghanshyam W. Dialani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 251(1)Section 80H

…therefore, only turnover of export unit should be considered for computing benefit of deduction u/s 80HHC. In his support, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Suresh Mehta 291 ITR 462, CIT vs Rathod Bros 254 ITR 656 (ad) and CIT vs Padmini Technologies Ltd 245 ITR (Del). 11. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that since there has been lot of legal developments on this issue and facts are not properly brought out, all these issues raised by the assessee may be sent to the AO for proper adjudication. 12. We have gone through the orders passed by lower authorit…

ACIT, Madurai vs. The Metal Powder Company Ltd., Madurai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 80I

…ent of loss and profit between various units. If an assessee had different units resulting in positive gross total in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT Vs. Rathore Brothers (254 ITR 656), CIT Vs. Suresh B. Mehta (291 ITR 462) and CIT Vs. M. Gani And Co. (301 ITR 381), each of the unit had to be separately considered for working out deduction u/s.80IA or 8018 or 80HHC of the Act, one separate account were being mentioned and there was no interlacing and interdependence. In the given case before us, assessee had positive gross tot…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/165/2001HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 32ASection 37(4)Section 80Section 80I

…ITA No. 170 & 165/2001 Page 1 of 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 165/2001 Reserved on:13th October, 2014 % Date of Decision: 19th January, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ....Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel. Versus M/S KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. …Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. ITA No. 170/2001 C…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd

ITA - 1265 / 2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2011
For Appellant: Ms. Surushi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr.S.K. Aggarwal
Section 80

…which is solely to encourage the exports…..” (emphasis is ours) 6. The judgment in the Madras Motors Ltd. (supra) was followed by two separate division benches of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rathore Brothers (2002) 254 ITR 656 (Mad.) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Gani and Co. (2008) 301 ITR 301. 2011:DHC:4704-DB ITA No.1265-2007 Page 8 of 14 7. The learned counsel for the revenue, however, has argued to the contrary. It is the submission of Ms. Aggarwal that the issue will be governed by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of IP…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd

ITA/1265/2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2011
For Appellant: Ms. Surushi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr.S.K. Aggarwal
Section 80

…which is solely to encourage the exports…..” (emphasis is ours) 6. The judgment in the Madras Motors Ltd. (supra) was followed by two separate division benches of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rathore Brothers (2002) 254 ITR 656 (Mad.) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Gani and Co. (2008) 301 ITR 301. 2011:DHC:4704-DB ITA No.1265-2007 Page 8 of 14 7. The learned counsel for the revenue, however, has argued to the contrary. It is the submission of Ms. Aggarwal that the issue will be governed by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of IP…