CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.

173 ITR 290High Court1988#16989 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…s. 10(2)(vii) of the said Act should be accepted. While holding so, the Court followed the decision in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.'s case (supra). 12. Expressing a similar view in CIT vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988) 73 CTR (AP) 176 : (1988) 173 ITR 290 (AP) : TC 18R.614, the Andhra Pradesh High Court pointed out that the idea of providing accommodation to the employees is that they should be near the factory or should be housed in hygienic or proper conditions so as to improve their productivity, health and their commitment to the employer and in such a case the purpose of allotment will undoub…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

Bhagat Motor Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8665/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 8665/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Bhagat Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 50, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-4(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0341G

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 8665/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Bhagat Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, 50, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-4(2), New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACB0341G Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Snehil Jha, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the as…

M/S. Record Investments and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmam/S Record Investments & Vs. I.T.O. Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(3)(1), 92, Maker Chambers Vi, 220, Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan/Gir No.Aaacr 7607 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(2)Section 23(4)

…nnot be brought to tax U/s 23 of the Act in terms of following the various judicial pronouncements. 6 M/s Record Investment & leasing P ltd. Vs ITO (i) DCIT Vs Prabhukripa Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 1092 & 1093/Kol/2011 (ii) CIT Vs Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 173 ITR 290 (AP) (iii) CIT Vs New India Maritime agencies P Ltd. 207 ITR 392 (Mad). 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the action of the A.O. for taxing the flat owned by the assessee company U/s 23(1) of the Act. Hence, I direct to delete the same. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronou…

M. Salgaocar & Bors. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

C.A. No.-000657-000657 - 1994Supreme Court10 Apr 2000

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC

Section 17(2)Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 36Section 40ASection 40A(5)

…29 and held that even if a benefit had been conferred on the director unilaterally without the aid of any agreement between the parties a benefit could be taxed as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iii) and (iv). In CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., (1988) 173 ITR 290 (AP) one of the questions before the High Court was "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the difference between the concessional rate of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13 interest and the prevailing market rate of interest on the loans advanced to the employees was not a perquisite under section 4…