CIT v. SreeRajendra Mills Ltd.

93 ITR 122High Court1974#18426 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. SreeRajendra Mills Ltd.

Crown Beers India Private Limited, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 633/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 297

…allowed: (i) Cossul & Co (P) Ltd. --vs- Commissioner of Income tax (2000) 245 ITR 312 (All), Allahabad High Court. (ii) Nilgiri Finance & Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd -vs- CIT (1995) 213 ITR 384 (Mad), Madras High Court. (iii) CIT -vs- SreeRajendra Mills Ltd (1974) 93 ITR 122 (Mad), Madras High Court. 5.4 The appellant submitted with regard to the Ground No.2(a) that the disallowance should be restricted to Rs.58,21,760/- i.e. the remuneration paid to IIIPL in relation to the Marketing, Sales and Distribution Services as against the entire amount of Rs.17,35,51,214/-. The breakup of the expenditure is submitted as und…

Crown Beers India Private Limited, Hyderabad, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 297

…allowed: (i) Cossul & Co (P) Ltd. --vs- Commissioner of Income tax (2000) 245 ITR 312 (All), Allahabad High Court. (ii) Nilgiri Finance & Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd -vs- CIT (1995) 213 ITR 384 (Mad), Madras High Court. (iii) CIT -vs- SreeRajendra Mills Ltd (1974) 93 ITR 122 (Mad), Madras High Court. 5.4 The appellant submitted with regard to the Ground No.2(a) that the disallowance should be restricted to Rs.58,21,760/- i.e. the remuneration paid to IIIPL in relation to the Marketing, Sales and Distribution Services as against the entire amount of Rs.17,35,51,214/-. The breakup of the expenditure is submitted as und…

DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Crown Beers India Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 589/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 297

…allowed: (i) Cossul & Co (P) Ltd. --vs- Commissioner of Income tax (2000) 245 ITR 312 (All), Allahabad High Court. (ii) Nilgiri Finance & Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd -vs- CIT (1995) 213 ITR 384 (Mad), Madras High Court. (iii) CIT -vs- SreeRajendra Mills Ltd (1974) 93 ITR 122 (Mad), Madras High Court. 5.4 The appellant submitted with regard to the Ground No.2(a) that the disallowance should be restricted to Rs.58,21,760/- i.e. the remuneration paid to IIIPL in relation to the Marketing, Sales and Distribution Services as against the entire amount of Rs.17,35,51,214/-. The breakup of the expenditure is submitted as und…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal NRI Complex Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1290/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

…ant year. The Ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tinplate India Ltd (207 ITR 729)&CIT VsDipak Corporation (P) Ltd (111 ITR 452) and Madras High Court in the case of CIT VsSreeRajendra Mills Ltd(93 ITR 122). The Ld. AR further submitted that the judgment of Supreme Court relied upon by the CIT(A) was distinguishable on facts. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the lower authorities. 4.4 We find that the limited issue for our consideration is whether where the terms of appointment was not expressly approved by the Central Government…

Bengal NRI Complex Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1088/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

…ant year. The Ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tinplate India Ltd (207 ITR 729)&CIT VsDipak Corporation (P) Ltd (111 ITR 452) and Madras High Court in the case of CIT VsSreeRajendra Mills Ltd(93 ITR 122). The Ld. AR further submitted that the judgment of Supreme Court relied upon by the CIT(A) was distinguishable on facts. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the lower authorities. 4.4 We find that the limited issue for our consideration is whether where the terms of appointment was not expressly approved by the Central Government…

CIT v. SreeRajendra Mills Ltd. (93 ITR 122) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax