CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.

405 ITR 595Reported decision#20789 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Late Shri Naren Rajan, Rep.by L/H Smt. Padmini V.R, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…xmann.com 66/203 Taxman 110/338 ITR 538(CaI) has laid down the factors for testing the transactions between a company and its shareholder in the fight of the aforesaid provision :—”…. C) The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd — 405 ITR 595, at Para 25 held; 26 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 “25. From the above discussion, it is quite evident that the amounts under the disputed heads were being received by the Assessee from its Subsidiary Company only as part of regular business transactions, which was being accounted properly. The change in circumstance, as to…

Padmini Rajan, L/R of Late (Shri) Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…xmann.com 66/203 Taxman 110/338 ITR 538(CaI) has laid down the factors for testing the transactions between a company and its shareholder in the fight of the aforesaid provision :—”…. C) The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd — 405 ITR 595, at Para 25 held; 26 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 “25. From the above discussion, it is quite evident that the amounts under the disputed heads were being received by the Assessee from its Subsidiary Company only as part of regular business transactions, which was being accounted properly. The change in circumstance, as to…

Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…xmann.com 66/203 Taxman 110/338 ITR 538(CaI) has laid down the factors for testing the transactions between a company and its shareholder in the fight of the aforesaid provision :—”…. C) The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd — 405 ITR 595, at Para 25 held; 26 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 “25. From the above discussion, it is quite evident that the amounts under the disputed heads were being received by the Assessee from its Subsidiary Company only as part of regular business transactions, which was being accounted properly. The change in circumstance, as to…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…38 ITR 538(CaI) has laid down the factors for testing the transactions 43 I.T.A. No.3374/CHNY/2019 between a company and its shareholder in the fight of the aforesaid provision :—”…. C) The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd — 405 ITR 595, at Para 25 held; “25. From the above discussion, it is quite evident that the amounts under the disputed heads were being received by the Assessee from its Subsidiary Company only as part of regular business transactions, which was being accounted properly. The change in circumstance, as to the distribution of dailies/publications in the Gulf,…

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (405 ITR 595) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax