CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (254 ITR 656), CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta (

301 ITR 381Reported decision#24377 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (254 ITR 656), CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta (

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

…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 undertaking had to be considered separately…

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

…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 undertaking had to be considered separately…

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

…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 had to be considered separately for workin…

CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 ITR 67), CIT v. Rathore Brothers (254 ITR 656), CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta ( (301 ITR 381) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax