CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd (423 ITR 158) (Kerala HC) (iv) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT (

86 TTJ 840Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#21509 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd (423 ITR 158) (Kerala HC) (iv) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT (

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3178/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (ii) Pr. CIT v. Rediff.com India Ltd. [2022] 441 ITR 195 (Bombay HC) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd (423 ITR 158) (Kerala HC) (iv) Binani Cement Ltd v. CIT (380 ITR 116) (Calcutta HC) (v) Excel Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [(2004) 86 TTJ 840 (Mum)] 101. On the other hand, Ld. DR has mainly relied upon finding of lower authorities. The Ld. DR has referred to paper book Page No. 743 wherein details of construction written off is submitted by Assessee which were found to be capital in nature. With regards to various decisions relied upon by Ld. AR, she submitted that primary reason for…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3139/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…mann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (ii) Pr. CIT v. Rediff.com India Ltd. [2022] 441 ITR 195 (Bombay HC) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd (423 ITR 158) (Kerala HC) (iv) Binani Cement Ltd v. CIT (380 ITR 116) (Calcutta HC) (v) Excel Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [(2004) 86 TTJ 840 (Mum)] 101. On the other hand, Ld. DR has mainly relied upon finding of lower authorities. The Ld. DR has referred to paper book Page No. 743 wherein details of construction written off is submitted by Assessee which were found to be capital in nature. With regards to various decisions relied upon by Ld. AR, she submitted that primary reason for…

Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…d his reliance on the following judgmental laws giving brief details of the findings in those cases : 1. M/s. Binnal Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT – Income Tax Appeal No.265 of 2009 (Cal.) 2. CIT Vs. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. 259 ITR 114 3. Excel Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 86 TTJ 840 (Mumbai) 4. Lawkim Ltd. Vs. JCIT 1 SOT 908 (Mum.) 5. CIT Vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. – Appeal No.516 of 2015 (Bombay High Court) Thus, it is the case of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in a case where assessee had a proposal to expand business into different product lines of manufacturing of Cars, i.e. W-124 and when the project has to be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…d his reliance on the following judgmental laws giving brief details of the findings in those cases : 1. M/s. Binnal Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT – Income Tax Appeal No.265 of 2009 (Cal.) 2. CIT Vs. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. 259 ITR 114 3. Excel Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 86 TTJ 840 (Mumbai) 4. Lawkim Ltd. Vs. JCIT 1 SOT 908 (Mum.) 5. CIT Vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. – Appeal No.516 of 2015 (Bombay High Court) Thus, it is the case of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in a case where assessee had a proposal to expand business into different product lines of manufacturing of Cars, i.e. W-124 and when the project has to be…

CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd (423 ITR 158) (Kerala HC) (iv) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT ( (86 TTJ 840) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax