CIT v. New India Industries Ltd.

201 ITR 208High Court1993#9737 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2(13)Section 22Section 250Section 35AD

Judgments citing CIT v. New India Industries Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

…warehousing facility, which is manifest from the lease agreement and the assessee has not involved itself in any complex commercial activity. 7.3 He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd.,201 ITR 208, and submitted that, each case has to be decided on his own facts and when the asset is in the nature of land or building the income derived by the assessee by renting out the same would fall under the head I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 8 income from house property because in such cases, it is not the fac…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

…warehousing facility, which is manifest from the lease agreement and the assessee has not involved itself in any complex commercial activity. 7.3 He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd.,201 ITR 208, and submitted that, each case has to be decided on his own facts and when the asset is in the nature of land or building the income derived by the assessee by renting out the same would fall under the head I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 8 income from house property because in such cases, it is not the fac…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

…reciation is claimed in one year and discontinued later on. Therefore, in the given circumstances section 50 does not apply to case of the appellant. 5.8 The appellant relied on decision of the Gujarat High Court CIT Vs. New India Industries Ltd. reported in 201 ITR 208. Apparently, the appellant is not the user of the building and the user was charitable trust who was running a school on rented premises. The Bombay High Court in case of Parekh Traders Vs. CIT reported in 150 ITR 310 has held that income from let out from godown earlier used by assessee would be income from property and not income from business.…

SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…ted in 20 ITR 451 (SC) M/s. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd b) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 51 ITR 353 (SC) c) Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs New India Industries reported in 201 ITR 208 (Guj) d) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Savan Sugar & Gur Refinery Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 74 ITR 7 (SC) 6.4. We find that the ld CITA rightly observed that the assessee had leased the factory premises along with plant & machinery to Lupin Ltd for which it was paid rental income of Rs 500 per month. Further , the assesse…

SEA SCAN MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6368/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 22Section 24Section 25Section 28

…the income earned by the assessee as rental income under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and not ‘Business Income’. For that proposition, she relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vrs. New India Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Guj). 10. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the order passed by revenue authorities as well as order of ITAT for AY 2010-11 and submitted that the facts are similar to the present case and there is no change in the facts of the current year also, therefore he supported the finding of Ld. CIT(A). 11. Considered the rival submissions and materi…

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3560/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…liance is also placed on : - Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) - CIT vs. New Bharat Engineering (Jam) Pvt Ltd (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - ITO v. Shri Dwarkadhis Estate (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Bom) - Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 310 (Bom) - Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2001) 171 CTR 457 (Del) - CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad) - AR Complex vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 615 (Mad.) The above referred case laws emphasize the fact that income from letting-out the space and the property which i…

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3559/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…liance is also placed on : - Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) - CIT vs. New Bharat Engineering (Jam) Pvt Ltd (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - ITO v. Shri Dwarkadhis Estate (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Bom) - Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 310 (Bom) - Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2001) 171 CTR 457 (Del) - CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad) - AR Complex vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 615 (Mad.) The above referred case laws emphasize the fact that income from letting-out the space and the property which i…

BARA MACHINES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble&Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 1509/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Bara Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito C/O. Ritaben B. Patel Ward-1(2) (Director) Pratyaksh Vera Bhavan, 1/5-6, Manichandra Society, Ambawadi, Nr. Surdhara Circle, Thaltej, Ahmedabad- 380015 Ahmedabad- 380054 Pan:Aab Cb8 696 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: ShriJames Kurien,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 32

…kul Finance Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2009] 29 SOT 11 (Delhi), the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of Mukti Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 50 DTR 273 & 238 CTR 174 (Cal) (High Court), CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Gujarat HC) in support of his claim. On the contrary the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. Heard the rival contentions made by the respective parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. We have carefully considered the order passed by the Ld. Delhi Bench passed in the matter of Mokul Finance (…

SOHAM TRADING AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4579/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4579/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Soham Trading & Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Investments Private Limited Income Tax-7(2) V. Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate Mumbai Ground Floor, L.J.Road No.1 Mahim(West) Mumbai- 400016 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcs4422J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 56

…ature of the income, according to the common notions of practical men has to be determined and accordingly charged to tax under the specific head of income relying on the decision in the case of Nalinikant Mody v. Narayan Row 61 ITR 428(SC) , CIT v. New India 201 ITR 208, Gopi v. CIT 225 ITR 320. ITA 4579/Mum/2012 4 The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee as it was held by the AO that the income from sub-leased assets does not come within the purview of business income as an act of taking a single property on lease from a related concern and giving the same on sub-lease cannot be termed as a business act…

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1641/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…gains of business has to be determined from the point of view of a businessman after considering facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs New India Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 208(Guj.) wherein it was held that whether an income falls under one head or another has to be decided according to the common notions of a practical and reasonable man after considering facts and circumstances involved in each case. It was contended that in the present case, the Assessing Officer did not give any cognizance to the fact that the inte…

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1) vs. MAYAR INDIA LD.,,

In the result, issue stands answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 4123/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, CA
Section 260A

…than employment of them for his own use for making profits for their business. The ratio has been followed in various decisions which are as under: i) Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 14 Taxman.com 157 (2011) (Alld.) ii) CIT Vs New India Industsries Ltd. 201 ITR 208 (Guj.) iii) Vyline Glass Works Ltd. 20 Taxman.com 32 iv) Narayan Maket Complex Vs ITO 21 Taxman.com 325. 5. We find that one of the activities of the assessee was of printing press and the assets let out by the assessee were used to carry on the activity of printing press. The property has been temporarily leased to M/s. AFL Ltd. for a period of…