CIT v. Shiv Kashi Mills Ltd.

95 Taxmann 73Supreme Court of India#11080 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 154 of the Income Tax ActSection 48Section 48 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing CIT v. Shiv Kashi Mills Ltd.

ESCORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 792/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. Escorts Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaace0074B) Dcit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Escorts Limited, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (PAN : AAACE0074B) DCIT, Central Circle 3, vs. M/s. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (PAN : AAACE0074B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.M. Mehta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date of Order : 27.02.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : T…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ESCORTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1313/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. Escorts Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaace0074B) Dcit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Escorts Limited, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (PAN : AAACE0074B) DCIT, Central Circle 3, vs. M/s. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (PAN : AAACE0074B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.M. Mehta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date of Order : 27.02.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : T…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

ITA 618/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

ITA 3163/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

ITA 3123/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

ITA 3122/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

ITA 2858/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

ITA 2789/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2857/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT.DR &For Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

…the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2788/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT.DR &For Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

…the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs. 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted." 5.1.5. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. 95 Taxmann 73 (SC) has held that guarantee commission paid to the bank to secure the due payment of the installments of loans taken for the purchase of machinery from foreign country on deferred payment basis was revenue expenditure and was allowable as such. Following this decisions as well as the decision in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporat…