CIT v. Rathi Graphics Technologies Ltd.

378 ITR 107High Court#24738 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Rathi Graphics Technologies Ltd.

The Dy CIT, Central Cir.-6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor 302, F-Block, Cj House Air India Building, Nariman Point Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai – 400021 Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aagca9648B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Navnit ChoudharyFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

…e Limited While admitting the aforesaid question of law, the Hon'ble Bombay High Courthas observed as under, "Mr.Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Rathi Graphics Technologies Ltd., 378 ITR 107 on an identical issue in favour of the Respondent-Assessee. However, we are of the view that, this would require consideration by this Court, as the words 'actual payment have to be reconciled with the Explanation 3C to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961." e) Since the jurisdictional High Court has admitted a substantial question of law on t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jsw Steel Limited

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/139/2011HC Karnataka09 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260ASection 43B

…submitted that substantial question of law No.1 is covered by decisions of this court as well as Delhi High Court in case of ‘KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC CO. LTD VS. CIT’, 228 ITR 674 (KAR), ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. RATHI GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGIES LTD’, 378 ITR 107 (DELHI) and answered against the revenue. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid submissions as well. 6 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.…

The ACIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra vs. M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda

ITA 2008/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Shah, A.R

Section 28Section 43Section 436Section 43B

…6 . A.Y. 2010-11 followed the order of the Tribunal Bangalore Bench in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rathi Graphics Technologies Ltd. 378 ITR 107 and ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Garware Chemicals Ltd. In ITA No. 7819/Mum/2010. 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the interest of Rs. 4,30,47,863/- being proportionate interest paid as part of FCD was converted into equity shares of the company and by such conversio…