CIT v. Subramanian & Sons Ltd.

22 ITR 344Supreme Court of India1952#20003 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 143(2)section 144section 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Subramanian & Sons Ltd.

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…ited Rs.4,89,04,688 to P & L account in respect of credit entries in Blocked Nostro accounts as per the directors of RBI. The same had been claimed as deduction while computing the total income. This is not an allowable deduction as per IT Act. It was held in 22 ITR 344 (SC) & CIT Vs Axis Advertising (P) Ltd (Mad) 255 ITR 510. The same has to be brought to tax. 2. The assessee had claimed Rs.158,78,70,585 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Cou…

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 775/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…ited Rs.4,89,04,688 to P & L account in respect of credit entries in Blocked Nostro accounts as per the directors of RBI. The same had been claimed as deduction while computing the total income. This is not an allowable deduction as per IT Act. It was held in 22 ITR 344 (SC) & CIT Vs Axis Advertising (P) Ltd (Mad) 255 ITR 510. The same has to be brought to tax. 2. The assessee had claimed Rs.158,78,70,585 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Cou…

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

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

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…154 TTJ 12 Weighted avg method is a recognised method of valuation of stock and therefore, value taken on basis of weighted avg Method cannot be held as notional. 37 C.O. No. 11/MUM/2022 Shri VikramBaijnath Agarwal Concordia Corporation Limited vs CIT (1952) 22 ITR 344 (Trav-Cochin) The stock may be valued at the option of the assessee at the average cost price of the entire stock purchased in the course of that year and need not be at the actual cost of the closing stock for the purpose of ascertaining the real profits earned during the year. 32. KurisettiSatyanarayanamurty vs. ITO (1988) 25 ITD 18 (Hyd) Assess…

DCIT 3(3), MUMBAI vs. RAMA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1857/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist-Sr.A.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…n claimed as deduction from the taxable income in the earlier years and would not come within the purview of section 41 () of the act. However this court by placing reliance upon the decision of the apex court in the matter of CIT v. Subramanian & Sons Ltd to 22 ITR 344 held that the loan was received by the assessee for carrying on its business and therefore, not a loan taken for the purchase of capital assets. Consequently, the decision of this court in the matter of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (supra) was distinguished as in the said case the loan was taken for the purchase of capital asset and not for trading a…

CIT v. Subramanian & Sons Ltd. (22 ITR 344) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax