CIT v. United Colleries Ltd.

357 ITR 750High Court2013#4685 most cited

What is CIT v. United Colleries Ltd. authority for?

A credit to a lease equalization account based on a consistent accounting practice is relevant only for accounting purposes, not for determining taxable income.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. United Colleries Ltd. · lease equalization account · deduction of income · consistent practice · accounting practice · profit and loss account · taxable income

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 115USection 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80absection 54esection 70(2)section 80msection 10(15)section 10(33)section 14a(1)section 54eclong-term capital assetsection 36(1)(viii)section 111a

Judgments citing CIT v. United Colleries Ltd.

Mr. Altaf H. Attari, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4332/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 250

…t the administrative decisionmakers are bound by certain representations which they make to individuals who stand to be affected by their orders.” 6.1 Further, he relied in the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Modern Terry Towers Ltd. 357 ITR 750 (Bombay) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme in CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (291 ITR 391) (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We noticed that the assessee is in the business of share trading and she is historically followed the method…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…duced for computation of deduction u/s 80M; there is no justification to reduce dividend income entitled to deduction u/s 80M by estimating expenditure i. CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd: [2017] 86 taxmann.com 24 (Bom) ii. CIT vs Modern Terry Towers Ltd [2013] 357 ITR 750 (Bom) iii. United Phosphorus Ltd vs ACIT: [2015] 230 Taxman 596 (Guj) Cases wherein it has been held that disallowance of expenditure cannot be made on adhoc basis i. J.J. Enterprises vs CIT: [2002] ITR 216 (SC) Page No. 59 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited ii. Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) iii…

Mrs. Khurshed H Attari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4945/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Khurshed H. Attari, Ito Ward-17(2)(1), Flat No. 6, East & West Court, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Bkc, 103, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapa 9806 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Deepak Tralshawala, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Gurbinder Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/11/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Tralshawala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Gurbinder Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the administrative decision- makers are bound by certain representations which they make to individuals who stand to be affected by their orders.” 6.1 Further, he relied in the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Modern Terry Towers Ltd. 357 ITR 750 (Bombay) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme in CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (291 ITR 391) (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We noticed that the assessee is in the business of share trading and she is historically followed the method…

DCIT Cir 6(3) vs. M/S Modern Terry Towels

ITA 7279/MUM/2003[1998 - 99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2016
For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chaturvedi-ARFor Respondent: S/Shri M. Dayasagar & Vijay Kumar Soni
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पवन "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7279 & 7280/Mum/2003, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 1999-2000 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-Circle-6(3) M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. 5th Floor, Room No.522, 68/69, Godavari, Poachkhanwala Road Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 0…

M/S. State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT. Spl. RG. - 27, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1997-1998

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank Of India Addl. Cit- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaacs 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee By:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :02.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dated 24.3.2005 & 28.3.2005 The Asssessee Has Filed The Appeals For Above Mentioned Two Ay.S Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal. It Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal For The Ay 1997-98.Assessee,A Public Sector Bank Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Income Etc., For Both The Years Can Be Summarised As Under : A.Y. Roi Filed Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders On Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 1997-98 28.11.1997 2086,56,04,580/- 27.03.2000 2433,18,77,427/- 24.3.2005 1998-99 30.11.1998 2816,41,01,920/- 14.02.2001 3558,87,03,620/- 28.3.2005

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav
Section 254(1)

…3823-24/M/05-SBI आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे",लेखा सद" एवं अिमत शु" "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.s.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank of India Addl. CIT- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. PAN:AAACS 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee by:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :…