CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (

291 ITR 462Reported decision2007#13985 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (

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

…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 gross total income. Therefore, each un…

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

…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 gross total income. Therefore, each un…

ROLLATAINERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed in respect of

ITA/166/2004HC Delhi16 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 260ASection 80H

…view was taken by the Madras High Court not only in Rathore Brothers (supra) but also in M.Gani and Company(supra) which in turn followed yet another judgment of the Madras High Courtin the case of CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta MANU/TN/7542/2007 : (2007) 291 ITR 462. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is in conformity with the decision of the Madras High Court, with which we are in respectful agreement. Therefore, we do not propose to frame a question of law on this issue. It is ordered accordingly.” 11. Since the decision of this Court was pronounced in the year 2011, the ITAT in its deci…

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

…of account are maintained and, 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…

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

…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 total income. Therefore, each undertaking…

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

…tion 80 HHC of the IT Act. This view was taken by the Madras High Court not only in Rathore Brothers (supra) but also in M.Gani & Co.(supra) which in turn followed yet another judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh B. Mehta (2007) 291 ITR 462. 11. Ms. Aggarwal‟s submission that the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (supra) and Simco Industries Ltd. (supra) would apply is 2011:DHC:4704-DB ITA No.1265-2007 Page 10 of 14 according to us completely untenable. This is demonstrable from the facts obtaining in the two judgments cited before us. In I…

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

…tion 80 HHC of the IT Act. This view was taken by the Madras High Court not only in Rathore Brothers (supra) but also in M.Gani & Co.(supra) which in turn followed yet another judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh B. Mehta (2007) 291 ITR 462. 11. Ms. Aggarwal‟s submission that the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (supra) and Simco Industries Ltd. (supra) would apply is 2011:DHC:4704-DB ITA No.1265-2007 Page 10 of 14 according to us completely untenable. This is demonstrable from the facts obtaining in the two judgments cited before us. In I…

CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers ( (291 ITR 462) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax