CIT v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

211 ITR 370High Court1989#11908 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

…and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of some difficulties either…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of some difficulties either…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of some difficulties either…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of some difficulties either…

M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 740/HYD/2012[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-19

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kamblem/S Hyderabad Distilleries & Vs Acit Wineries Pvt. Ltd. A-4, Ida, Uppal Circle-2(2) Hyderabad-39 Hyderabad Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 5

…i Lakshmi Silk Mills Limited: 20 ITR 451 (SC) • CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd.: 169 ITR 597 (SC) • Universal Plast Ltd. & Ors. V. CIT: 237 ITR 454 (SC) • Rajendra Flour & Allied Industries : 128 ITR 402 (Del.) • CIT v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.: 211 ITR 370 (Del.) • CIT v. Super Fine Cables Private Ltd.: 154 ITR 532 (Del.) • CIT v. Mysore Wine Products Ltd.: ITA Nos. 408 to 410 of 2008 (Kar.) • CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products P. Ltd.: 283 ITR 162 (MP) • CIT v. Anand Rubber and Plastics (P.) Ltd.: 178 ITR 301 (P&H) • CIT v. Golden Engineering Works: 256 ITR 774 (P&H) • CIT Vs.Malabar and Pioneer Hos…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…hereafter, ran the mill. Rent received for this purpose has been treated as ‘business income’ by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 14 16. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Northern India Iron and Steel Co. 211 ITR 370 [Del] wherein it has been held that assessee was running business of manufacturing items of iron and steel and heavy castings. The assessee continued its business from December 1968 to May 1970 and thereafter, factory building and machinery were leased out from time to time for about six years. Income received from such lease has been held as ‘bu…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Expo Mecanique Marketing Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any

ITA - 1154 / 2010HC Delhi17 Aug 2010
Section 260ASection 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(B)

…ive rise to substantial question of law. He has commended us to the decisions in Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, (1979) 117 ITR 569(SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., (1989) 179 ITR 599(Delhi) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd., (1995) 215 ITR 522(Delhi). On a perusal of the aforesaid decisions, the principle that emanates is that the payment of salary to a ITA 1154/2010 page 4 of 5 . director, whether reasonable or not, would be in the realm of facts. To elaborate, the line of auth…

Income Tax vs. Dr R. N. Goel

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/632/2007HC Delhi06 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Mr Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr C S Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40A

…ITA Nos. 631 & 632 of 2007 Page 1 of 11 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on : 04.09.2008 % Judgment delivered on : 06.11.2008 + ITA No. 631/2007 & ITA No.632/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ..... Appellant -versus- DR R. N. GOEL ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Prem Lata Bansal For the Respond…

Income Tax vs. Dr R. N. Goel

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/631/2007HC Delhi06 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Mr Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr C S Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40A

…ITA Nos. 631 & 632 of 2007 Page 1 of 11 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on : 04.09.2008 % Judgment delivered on : 06.11.2008 + ITA No. 631/2007 & ITA No.632/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ..... Appellant -versus- DR R. N. GOEL ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Prem Lata Bansal For the Respond…

CIT v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (211 ITR 370) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax