CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust

248 ITR 29High Court2001#12527 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 80-I(1)Section 80-I(6)Section 80A(2)Section 80ABSection 80B(5)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawana, Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma & Shri Apurva Chudhry, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 80I

…d that losses should be set off against the profits of the industrial undertaking before granting the deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the specific provisions found in section 80AB. In CITv.Nima Specific Family Trust [2001] 248 ITR 29 the Bombay High Court has taken the view that the Legislature has introduced section 80A(2) and section 80A(5) in order to put a ceiling on the claim for deduction which indicates that if the deductions under Chapter VI-A are to be claimed then the gross total income should be sufficient to absorb such deductions i.e. if the gross total income is…

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Vs Havells India Ltd. ACIT 1, Raj Narian Marg, LTU Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi AAACH0351E (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, Ms. Deepa Shree Rao, CA, Sh. Vibhu Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Sunit Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 03/07/2012 passed by the CIT(A)-LTU, New D…

RATAN PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 213/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Ratan Plastic Industries Vs. Acit 24(3) R.No.401B, 4Th Floor 215, Atrium A-001, Ground Floor, Next To Courtyard Mariott Piramal Chambers, Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aaafr3886K Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 45(2)Section 48Section 80HSection 80I

…r is not justified since the deduction u/ss.80HHC and 80IB are independent; AO was not justified to deduct the amount of deduction u/s 80HHC from the eligible profits while computing deduction u/s 80IB. This view finds the support of the following decisions:- 248 ITR 29 (Bom) Nima Specific Family Trust Vs. CIT. 229 ITR 123 (MP) J.P, Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT 251ITR 587 (Guj) CIT Vs. Chokshi Contracts Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 777 (Guj) CIT V/s. Sidhpur Isabgul Processing Company Ltd. 16. In view of the above, I direct the AO to recompute the deduction claimed u/s.80IB. 9 M/s. Ratan Plastic Industries 17. In t…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VESUVIOUS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 563/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] I.T.A Nos.563&564/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-10, -Vs.- Vesuvious India Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacv 8995 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Harish Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Harish Agarwal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 Bom ; CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (R~); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S.B. Oil Industries P. Ltd [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT v. SKG…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX DEL vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 38 / 2000HC Delhi05 Jan 2015
Section 260Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 (Bom); CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj.); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd. [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (Raj.); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S. B. Oil Industries P. Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL-III vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/38/2000HC Delhi05 Jan 2015
Section 260Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 (Bom); CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj.); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd. [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (Raj.); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S. B. Oil Industries P. Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT…

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/38/2000HC Telangana20 Jun 2013
Section 260Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

…followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 (Bom); CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj.); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd. [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (Raj.); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S. B. Oil Industries P. Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT…

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

C.A. No.-004190-004191 - 2002Supreme Court13 Mar 2008
For Respondent: Assessing Officer, Income Tax,Mumbai & Anr
Section 260Section 80Section 80ASection 80GSection 80HSection 80J

…granting the deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, in view of the specific provisions found in Section 80AB. In http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8 Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Nima Specific Family Trust (2001) 248 ITR 29 the Bombay High Court has taken the view that the legislature has introduced Section 80A(2) and Section 80A(5) in order to put a ceiling on the claim for deduction which indicates that if the deductions under Chapter VI-A are to be claimed then the gross total income should be sufficient to absorb such deductions i.e. if the gross total incom…

CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust (248 ITR 29) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax