CIT v. Tata Chemicals 256 ITR 395; Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

212 CTR 562High Court2007#23623 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Tata Chemicals 256 ITR 395; Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Anand Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Tirchy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1915/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1915/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Anand Engineering Products Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd. Circle-3 12/18, Abirami Flats, Ground Floor, Trichy. Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan:Aafca 1512R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.R.Uma Maheswari, JCITFor Respondent: 30.05.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी राहुल चौधर", "या$यक सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1915/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Anand Engineering Products Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd. Circle-3 12/18, Abirami Flats, Ground floor, Trichy. Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. PAN:AAFCA 1512R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.A अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appella…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Godavari Shilpkala Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore dismissed

ITA 4249/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate

Section 14ASection 194Section 37(1)

…/2016 u/s 37(1) of the Act regardless of the treatment given by the assessee in their (2015) 372 ITR 425; CIT vs. Modi Industries (1993) 200 ITR 341 (Delhi); CIT vs. Relaxo Footwears Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 231 (Delhi); Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 212 CTR 562 (Delhi); and CIT vs. Gaja Advisors (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 726 (Delhi), ld. CIT (A) held that since the facts are covered by these judgments, assessee is entitled to relief and accordingly granted the relief to the assessee. It is not explained before us as to any discrepancy in the facts found by the ld. CIT (A) and since the expenses are incur…

CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd

Appeal is partly allowed, to the extent it covers the first two questions;

ITA - 95 / 2011HC Delhi14 Sept 2012

…amounted to expenditure in respect of an existing business. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment reported as CIT v. Tata Chemicals 256 ITR 395; Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 77 ITR 739; Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 212 CTR 562 and CIT v. Monnet Industries Limited 221 CTR (Del) 266. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the total amount of ` 43,78,607/- (` 38,01,632- business expenditure and ` 5,76,975/-) paid by the assessee as its share of the joint venture towards proposed insurance business could be properly allowed as deduction. Likewise, as regards the sum of…