How many judgments cite CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd.?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd. (269 ITR 398), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 28, Section 80-IA, Section 14A, Section 37(1), Section 143(3).

CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd.

269 ITR 398Supreme Court of India2004#5241 most cited

What is CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd. authority for?

Amounts set apart towards a molasses reserve fund are considered a diversion of income by overriding title and are therefore excludible from the assessee's total income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd · molasses reserve fund · diversion of income · overriding title · excludible from total income · 269 ITR 398 · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 28 Section 80-IA Section 14A Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 254(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(4)corpus fund weighted deduction section 35(2ab)eligible business rule of consistency section 45 section 80ia book profits section 80i section 115jb section 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd.

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ible in the assessee’s total income. 14.43. Similar view was ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs New Morrisson Sugar 63 M/s. Mumbai International Airport Mills Ltd 269 ITR 397 (SC) and CIT vs Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 269 ITR 398 (SC) wherein it was held that the amount set apart towards molasses reserve fund constituted diversion of income by overriding title, and therefore, it was held to be excludible from assessee’s total income. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd 116 ITR 60 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when right from the incepti…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Madras Stock Exchange Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2546/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2546/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 126/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate

Section 144ASection 43B

…269 ITR 397 wherein the Apex court affirmed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the same case reported 244 ITR 738 (Mad). This decision was followed by the Apex court in rejecting the SLP in the case of CIT vs Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 269 ITR 398. 63. After taking into careful consideration all the details and facts obtained in the assessee’s case, I am of the considered opinion that the transfer of funds of `23,16,889/- towards contribution to Investors Service Reserve, `1,15,844/- for contribution to Investor Protection Reserve and `7,69,328/- interest on listing deposits amounting in a…