CIT v. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)

175 ITR 374High Court1986#15108 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)

Y. J. Realty and Aviation Pvt. Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Y. J. Realty Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 6678/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 71

…anarayana Hotels (P) Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) (1992) 201ITR 138. 8 I.T.A. No. 6678, 6679 & 6680 /Mum/2017 iii) CIT V/s. Russell Properties (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) (1981) 137 ITR 473. vi) CIT V/s. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) (1986) 175 ITR 374. v) M/s. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. V/s. AOT (Bangalore ITAT "C" Bench) (2013) (ITA No. 720,721 & 685 of 2011) 6. Further, Ld. AR submitted that maintenance charges collected from the tenants are to be considered separately as income from other sources and the other running expenditure should be allowed as expenditure against the income earned by th…

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S National Engineering Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 92C

…n upheld. We note that the order of the Tribunal has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and also the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the lis by relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Model Mfg. Co. reported in 175 ITR 374 (Cal) and in the case of CIT vs Russel Properties Pvt. Ltd. 137 ITR 473 (Cal). We note that since the assessee’s case on this issue have been consistently upheld by the CIT(A) which in turn has been upheld by this Tribunal and which decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), therefore, we confirm the order of the L…

ACIT - 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Xtp Design Furniture Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 717/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…that the amount received towards amenities is assessable under the head ‘income from house property’. 4. On the contrary, learned DR took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Model Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.(175 ITR 374) and also decision rendered by Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Gowardhan Das and Sons (158 Taxman 465) and contended that the amount received towards amenities is assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. 5. Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any…

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S National Engineering Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

ITA 987/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT(Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ed in 249 ITR 47 (Cal). We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded by the Learned Tribunal that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [CIT vs. MODEL MFG. CO.] reported in 175 ITR 374 (CAL) and in the case of [CIT vs. RUSSEL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.] 137 ITR 473(CAL). This issue was also raised before another coordinate Bench of Learned Tribunal and it was accepted by the same Bench. However, it is recorded that the facts and circumstances of the issue was identically same with that of the assessment year 2005-06. The learned Trib…

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S National Engineering Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue(in ITA No

ITA 986/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.986 & 987/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13) D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Vs. M/S. National Engineering

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Mondal, JCIT(Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ed in 249 ITR 47 (Cal). We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded by the Learned Tribunal that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [CIT vs. MODEL MFG. CO.] reported in 175 ITR 374 (CAL) and in the case of [CIT vs. RUSSEL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.] 137 ITR 473(CAL). This issue was also raised before another coordinate Bench of Learned Tribunal and it was accepted by the same Bench. However, it is recorded that the facts and circumstances of the issue was identically same with that of the assessment year 2005-06. The learned Trib…

Goodvalue Polyplast Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1662/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…the case of Lokshikshak Trust (101 ITR 234) and held that transactions under dispute could not be classified as an adventure in nature of trade, that same had to be taxed as “income from other source”.He relied upon the case of Model Manufacturing Co. P.Ltd. (175 ITR 374). He further held that the interest income was to be taxed as income from other sources, that no expenditure had been laid out wholly and exclusively for earning the income, that no deduction u/s 57 (iii) could be granted to the assessee .However, he held that the assessee was entitled for depreciation of Rs.5.21 lacs claimed on furniture and fix…

CIT v. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) (175 ITR 374) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax