CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF)

210 ITR 580High Court1994#10336 most cited

What is CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF) authority for?

A taxpayer may be eligible for foreign tax credit for taxes paid on income that is exempt in India, as demonstrated by the citation in cases discussing the disallowance of foreign tax credit claims.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF) · foreign tax credit · exempt income · section 10A · section 10AA · overseas tax credit · taxability in India

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 9(i)section 2(43)section 14(a)section 193section 90(1)section 195(1)section 40(a)(ii)section 52section 195(2)azadi bachao andolansection 80h

Judgments citing CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF)

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…on the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for taxes paid on such income in overseas countries, except, USA. 31. We have conside…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…on the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for taxes paid on such income in overseas countries, except, USA. 31. We have conside…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…on the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for taxes paid on such income in overseas countries, except, USA. 31. We have conside…

Sulzer Pumps India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, Shri Sushil Kr
Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92CSection 95D

…ts jurisdictional territory as held in Taylor vs. CIT 232 ITR 771; CGT v Jain 230 ITR 839; CIT v Sunil Kumar 212 ITR 238; CIT v Thana Elec 206 ITR 727; Indian Tube v CIT 203 ITR 54; CIT v Joshi and Joshi 202 ITR 1017. CIT v Highway 217 ITR 234; CIT v Maganlal 210 ITR 580. The above additional ground is a purely legal one and following the decision in NTPC v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit it for adjudication. Further in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that: “24. The legislative history bears out that the Income Tax Bill, 1961, as introduced in the Parliament, had Section 40(a…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…us GodavariDevi Saraf 113 ITR 589 wherein it has been held that in absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of the non jurisdictional High Court is binding on the tribunal of a different state. Similarly he relied upon 150 ITR 1, 210 ITR 580 and 167 TTJ 689. He further submitted that the liability to pay the education cess has also arising during assessment year 2015 – 16 as it is dependent on the liability of the income tax payable Under the act it accrues in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2015 – 16. He simply stated that merely because the liabilities quantified wher…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No. 3785/Mum/2016 For (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-1(2)(4), (Formerly Known As Idea 803, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Cellular Ltd.), Skyline Icon, Vs. Hospital Building, 1St Floor, 86/92 Andheri Kurla Charni Road (W), Road, Marol Naka, Andheri Mumbai-400002. (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaacb2100P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi with Shri C.D. Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT-DR with Shri V.K. Agarwal ( Sr DR)
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…here is some material to show that the said decision has been accepted by the Department........" (Emphasis supplied) 14. A little later, however, while dealing with a materially similar situation, in the case of CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchal (HUF) [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj). vide judgment dated 1st September, 1994, Their Lordships have held as follows: "........ At the time when the Tribunal decided the appeal, that was the only decision in the field and, therefore, in view of what the Bombay 16 ITA No. 3785 Mum 2016-M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. High Court has held in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (19781 113 IT…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5713/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…uch proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Smt. Nirmalabai K. Davekar, [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom.) ii) CIT v/s Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1996] 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for taxes paid on such income in overseas countries, except, USA. 31. We have consi…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Business Channels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

ITA 7047/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…ow that the said decision has been accepted by the Department. ............. (Emphasis by underlining supplied by us) 14. A little later, however, while dealing with a materially similar situation, in the case of CIT Vs Maganlal Mohanlal Panchal (HUF) [(1994) 210 ITR 580 (Guj)], vide judgment dated 1 st September 1994, Their Lordships have held as follows: ........ At the time when the Tribunal decided the appeal, that was the only decision in the field and, therefore, in view of what the Bombay M/s. Videocon d2h Limited High Court has held in CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and CIT vs. S…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…s some material to show that the said decision has been accepted by the Department. . . . . . . ." (Emphasis supplied) 14. A little later, however, while dealing with a materially similar situation, in the case of CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchal (HUF) [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj), vide judgment dated 1st September, 1994, Their Lordships have held as follows: ". . . . . . . . At the time when the Tribunal decided the appeal, that was the only decision in the field and, therefore, in view of what the Bombay High Court has held in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and CIT v. Smt. Nirmalabai K. Dar…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…Delhi High Court (Joint Investments) and Punjab & Haryana High Court (Empire Package) should be followed. 1. Smt. Nirmalabai K 186 ITR 242 (Bom) 2. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf 113 ITR 589 ()Bom) 3. Highway Construction 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati) 4. Maganlal Mohanlal 210 ITR 580 (Gujarat) NO TAX WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW – TRIBUNAL CAN GIVE RELIEF EVEN IF AMOUNT OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME 6. Article 265 of the Constitution in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law and therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose of assessment proceeding…

CIT v. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF) (210 ITR 580) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax