(CIT v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.

89 ITR 45Supreme Court of India1973#18391 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 337,363 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12ASection 12AASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

going concernunabsorbed depreciationamalgamationcommissioner (appeals)section 12section 115section 11prescribedtransferpersontotal incomecompany

Judgments citing (CIT v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

…mborg, wherein despite non-fulfilment of conditions of section 47(xiii), the Hon'ble Court held that conversion of firm into company did not amount to transfer at all. g. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 45 (SC). It was, inter alia, held as under "We have already stated earlier that the distribution of assets by a liquidator on the voluntary winding-up of a company cannot constitute sale, transfer or exchange for the purpose of sub- section (1) of section 12B of the Act. If the language of sub-section (1) of section 12B of the Act is clear and does no…

Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple, Burujupeta vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 65

…Rs. 2.08 crores is required to be treated as the income instead of being the capital receipt. The learned counsel relied upon various judgments as under : 1. CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 60 (SC) ; 2. CIT v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 45 (SC) ; 3. Mahila Sidh Nirman Yojna v. IAC [1994] 50 TTJ (Delhi) 494; 4. ITO (Exemptions) v. Smt. Basanti Devi and Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust (I. T. A. No. 5082/Del/2010, dated January 19, 2011) 5. ITO v. Gaudiya Granth Anuved Trust [2013] 28 ITR (Trib) 161 (Agra) ; and 6. Shankar Bhagwan Estate v. ITO [1997] 61 ITD 196 (Cal.). 5.3. The l…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…will not be applicable. The Appellant further submits that Clause (v) in section 2(22) has been inserted out of abundant caution and to allay fears that when there is reduction of capital, deemed dividend wouldn‘t be attracted (CIT vs. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (89 ITR 45)) (Pg. 580, Pg. 576-581 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). The interpretation canvassed by the AO would lead to a situation that prior to amendment all such transfers were subject to provisions of section 2(22) of the Act. Settled position that interpretation which leads to absurdity must be avoided. (CIT vs. JH Gotla 156 ITR 323) (Para 45 and 46, Pg.…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…will not be applicable. The Appellant further submits that Clause (v) in section 2(22) has been inserted out of abundant caution and to allay fears that when there is reduction of capital, deemed dividend wouldn‘t be attracted (CIT vs. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (89 ITR 45)) (Pg. 580, Pg. 576-581 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). The interpretation canvassed by the AO would lead to a situation that prior to amendment all such transfers were subject to provisions of section 2(22) of the Act. Settled position that interpretation which leads to absurdity must be avoided. (CIT vs. JH Gotla 156 ITR 323) (Para 45 and 46, Pg.…

M/S. Mahasakti Foundation, Kalahandi vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…:2 00 7-0 8 to 2 012 -13 Rs. 2.08 crore is required to be treated as the income instead of being the capital receipt. The ld. Counsel relied upon various judgments as under :- CIT vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60 (SC) CIT vs. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. 89 ITR 45 (SC) Mahila Sidh Nirman Yojna vs. IAC 50 TTJ 494 (Del.) Smt. Basanti Devi and Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust ITA No. 5082/Del/ 2010 ITO vs. Gaudiya Granth Anuved Trust (2013) 28 ITR 0161 (Agra Trib.) Shankar Bhagwan vs. ITO, 61 ITD 196 (Cal.) 5.3 The ld. D/R for the revenue has submitted that provisions of section 147/148 are attracted as t…

(CIT v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (89 ITR 45) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax