CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd.

59 ITR 574Supreme Court of India1966#10084 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 32(2)unabsorbed depreciationsurvey under section 133awritten down valuesection 69bsection 292cblock periodfair market valuesection 292section 32section 29section 132a

Judgments citing CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd.

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

…There is, thus, no modification of nor deviation from the basic and well recognized principle of commercial accountancy by the statute as is contended by the counsel for the assessees." (xxiv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Moon Mills Ltd - 59 ITR 574 [larger bench of 3 judges] held that – “But the fourth proviso introduces a fiction that in case any insurance, salvage or compensation money received in respect of the said property exceeds the difference between the written down value and the scrap value, so much of the excess as mentioned therein will be deemed to be the profits of the previou…

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

…There is, thus, no modification of nor deviation from the basic and well recognized principle of commercial accountancy by the statute as is contended by the counsel for the assessees." (xxiv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Moon Mills Ltd - 59 ITR 574 [larger bench of 3 judges] held that – “But the fourth proviso introduces a fiction that in case any insurance, salvage or compensation money received in respect of the said property exceeds the difference between the written down value and the scrap value, so much of the excess as mentioned therein will be deemed to be the profits of the previou…

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR)
Section 292CSection 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 The ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi M/s Mayfair Resorts India Ltd., 110055 D-21, Indira Enclave, Neb Sarai, New vs. Delhi 110068 PAN AAACM 2149 P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR) For Assessee : Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CA Date of Final Hearing : 25.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.08.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A)-26 New…

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

…Ltd. 2018-19 Investments (P) Ltd (2013) (141 ITD 672)(T) (Kol) (Para 8, Pg. 573, Pg. 568-575 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). Further on an imaginary situation, deeming provisions cannot be invoke a deeming section. Reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Moon Mills Ltd 59 ITR 574 (SC) (Pg. 552, Pg. 548-554 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II), CIT Vs. KhimjiNanshy 194 ITR 192 (Bom HC) (Para 10, Pg. 557, Pg. 555-557 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) 97. The Appellant submits that AO and CIT (A) have erred in imputing illegality in the hands of the Appellant by holding that the Appellant has distributed the shares of ABCL to its share…

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

…Ltd. 2018-19 Investments (P) Ltd (2013) (141 ITD 672)(T) (Kol) (Para 8, Pg. 573, Pg. 568-575 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II). Further on an imaginary situation, deeming provisions cannot be invoke a deeming section. Reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Moon Mills Ltd 59 ITR 574 (SC) (Pg. 552, Pg. 548-554 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II), CIT Vs. KhimjiNanshy 194 ITR 192 (Bom HC) (Para 10, Pg. 557, Pg. 555-557 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) 97. The Appellant submits that AO and CIT (A) have erred in imputing illegality in the hands of the Appellant by holding that the Appellant has distributed the shares of ABCL to its share…

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 775/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264Section 92C

…Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [1960] 40 ITR 142 was referred to for the proposition that fiction created by the section should not be carried beyond the purpose for which it was intended which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 574, in CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 741 , in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 . It was submitted that the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Justice R.M. Datta [1989] 180 ITR 86 had held that the words of the statute are precise and unambigugus, they must be accepted as declaring the express intention of the legislation. The departme…

ACIT - 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AMARTARA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6181/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Michael JeraldFor Respondent: None
Section 45(3)Section 48Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM ITA Nos.6181 & 5569/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT, Range - 9(1)(1) M/s. Amartara Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, 190/191, Indian Cork Mills Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Compound, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Powai, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AADCA 9217 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Michael Jerald Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 22.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the Revenue agains…

SARRANGAN ASHOK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 544/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.544/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Sarrangan Ashok, H37/12, Gita Apartments, Non Corporate Ward – 15(1),. Kumanan Street, Kalashektra Chennai. Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aafpa6211N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 45(2)Section 45(3)Section 50C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.544/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Sarrangan Ashok, H37/12, Gita Apartments, Non Corporate Ward – 15(1),. Kumanan Street, Kalashektra Chennai. Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. PAN: AAFPA6211N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Rama…

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [1960] 40 ITR 142 was referred to for the proposition that fiction created by the section should not be carried beyond the purpose for which it was intended which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 574, in CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 741 , in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 . It was submitted that the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Justice R.M. Datta [1989] 180 ITR 86 had held that the words of the statute are precise and unambigugus, they must be accepted as declaring the express intention of the legislation. The departme…

AMARTARA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 45(3)Section 50C

…pital asset in special cases, the question of importing another deeming fiction to determine the deemed full value of consideration is incorrect. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Moon Mills Ltd, (1966) 59 ITR 574. The Ld.AR referring to the Lucknow Bench decision in the case of Carlton Hotel Pvt Ltd (supra) submitted that the decision rendered by the Lucknow Bench is per incuriam in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Moon Mills Ltd, as per which deeming fiction cannot be extended by importing another deeming fiction f…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AMARTARA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 6050/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 45(3)Section 50C

…pital asset in special cases, the question of importing another deeming fiction to determine the deemed full value of consideration is incorrect. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Moon Mills Ltd, (1966) 59 ITR 574. The Ld.AR referring to the Lucknow Bench decision in the case of Carlton Hotel Pvt Ltd (supra) submitted that the decision rendered by the Lucknow Bench is per incuriam in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Moon Mills Ltd, as per which deeming fiction cannot be extended by importing another deeming fiction f…