CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand v. CIT

13 ITR 272High Court1945#22343 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand v. CIT

Fortis Hospitals Ltd vs. ACIT Circle 9(2) New Delhi

ITA-132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…Page 8 of 12 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad.); 10. He further submits that even otherwise, non-compete fee, being an ‘intangible asset’, is entitled for claim of depreciation under Sec…

Fortis Hospitals Ltd

ITA/132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…Page 8 of 12 (i) Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT: 208 ITR 740 (Cal.); (ii) CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad.); 10. He further submits that even otherwise, non-compete fee, being an ‘intangible asset’, is entitled for claim of depreciation under Sec…

Harshad R. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2744/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ee without filing an appeal itself challenging the said finding. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions :- (i) State of Kerala vs Vijaya Stores reported in (1979) 116 ITR 15 (SC) (ii) The Motor Union Insurance vs CIT reported in (1945) 13 ITR 272 (Bom) s) It was further submitted that Section 5 of the Income Tax Act imposes a general liability to tax all income. However, the burden of proof lies on the department to prove that there exists an amount which falls within the taxing provision as income of the assessee. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Cour…

CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand v. CIT (13 ITR 272) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax