CIT v. Smiffs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 307Supreme Court of India#20578 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smiffs Securities Ltd.

M/S. Icici Bank Ltd ( Erstwhile Icici Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 88

…pect. She claimed that the depreciation on business and commercial rights acquired at the time of merger being in the nature of goodwill should have been allowed in term of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smiffs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 307 (SC) and as regards to interest on capitalization of building ought to have been allowed as revenue expenditure following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Chemicals 175 CTR 443 (Bom). On query from the bench, the learned Sr. DR fairly conceded that let the facts be examined by the AO because none of the aut…

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

…etween the cost of acquisition and the fair value of the assets is recognized as goodwill in the books of the assessee and claimed depreciation on the goodwill. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smiffs Securities, 348 ITR 307 (SC). The AO disallowed IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 34 of 84 the depreciation stating that the claim was not allowed in the earlier assessment year also. 36. We have heard both the parties. The coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 has held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable based on the fac…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4826/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…business and commercial rights acquired at the time of merger being in the nature of goodwill should have been allowed in term of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smiffs Securities Page 13 of 34 ITA No.4657&4826/Mum/2004 Ltd. 348 ITR 307 (SC) and as regards to interest on capitalization of building ought to have been allowed as revenue expenditure following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Chemicals 175 CTR 433 (Bom). On query from the bench, the learned Sr. DR fairly conceded that let the facts be examined by the AO because none of the aut…

Icici Bank Ltd vs. DCIT Range 3(1)

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4657/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…business and commercial rights acquired at the time of merger being in the nature of goodwill should have been allowed in term of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smiffs Securities Page 13 of 34 ITA No.4657&4826/Mum/2004 Ltd. 348 ITR 307 (SC) and as regards to interest on capitalization of building ought to have been allowed as revenue expenditure following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Chemicals 175 CTR 433 (Bom). On query from the bench, the learned Sr. DR fairly conceded that let the facts be examined by the AO because none of the aut…

CIT v. Smiffs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 307) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax