CIT v. Williamson Magor & Co Ltd (

253 ITR 294High Court2001#24002 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 132Section 139Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 44AB

Judgments citing CIT v. Williamson Magor & Co Ltd (

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Birla Gwalior Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (44 ITR 847) (MP HC) − CIT Vs. Pudukottai Co. Pvt. Ltd. (84 ITR 788) (Mad HC) − Hindalco Industries Co. Vs. CIT (389 ITR 430) (All HC) − CIT Vs Williamson Magor & Co Ltd (232 taxman 533) (Cal HC) − CIT Vs Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd (253 ITR 294) (Del HC) 10.24 The undisputed facts, as noted above, are that, the assessee had incurred average cost of borrowings at 10% per annum and that the loan advanced to JCT carried lower interest ranging from 8% to 9%. The assessee firm is inter alia engaged in the business of money lending. In this line of business, it is a common occurrence that,…

DCIT, CC2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Birla Gwalior Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (44 ITR 847) (MP HC) − CIT Vs. Pudukottai Co. Pvt. Ltd. (84 ITR 788) (Mad HC) − Hindalco Industries Co. Vs. CIT (389 ITR 430) (All HC) − CIT Vs Williamson Magor & Co Ltd (232 taxman 533) (Cal HC) − CIT Vs Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd (253 ITR 294) (Del HC) 10.24 The undisputed facts, as noted above, are that, the assessee had incurred average cost of borrowings at 10% per annum and that the loan advanced to JCT carried lower interest ranging from 8% to 9%. The assessee firm is inter alia engaged in the business of money lending. In this line of business, it is a common occurrence that,…

Nandkishor & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 8644/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh(D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 94(7)

…sessee-firm on the borrowed funds. The assessee–firm relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.A.Builders (2007)288 ITR 1(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sahni Silk Mills Private Limited (2001)253 ITR 294(Del. HC). The A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee-firm and held that the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act are very clear and hence there is no room for ambiguity. The AO held that the omission is not justified and it ITA 8644/Mum/2011 4 cannot be said that there was no willful neglect. The assessee-firm did not contest the issu…

CIT v. Williamson Magor & Co Ltd ( (253 ITR 294) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax