CIT vs Jivaji Rao Sugar Company Ltd 71 ITR 319 (MP), CIT v. JK Transport

260 ITR 655High Court2003#24068 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT vs Jivaji Rao Sugar Company Ltd 71 ITR 319 (MP), CIT v. JK Transport

Shri Devkripa Textile Mills (P) Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Bhilwara Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 467/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in case of CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “ 20. As far as the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Maps Tours and Travels [2003] 260 ITR 655 (Mad) is concerned, if under law, there is a prohibition on the assessee to put the cars on roads for want of registration, considering such prohibition, the claim of the assessee Shri Devkripa Textile Mills P. Ltd. under section 32 of the Income-tax Act could not be granted. Thus, the abovesaid decision has to be seen in the light of the facts…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…ed in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. (supra) qua the words "used for the purpose of the business" is to mean "used for the purpose of enabling the owner to carry on the business and earn profits in the business", even as noted in CIT v. Maps Tours & Travels [2003] 260 ITR 655 Mad) (at pg. 656). How could the plant in the present case be even remotely considered as enabling the carrying on of its’ business by the assessee. There is no passive user in the instant case, much less for the purpose of the assessee’s business. In Maps Tours & Travels (supra), the following question of law was answered by the Hon’ble Court in…

Smt. Maitreyee Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.to WD - 1, Haldia

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.L.Bhowmick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Maitreyee Das -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Purba Medinipur Haldia [PAN : AEFPD 0377 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri K.L.Bhowmick, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05.12.2012 of CIT(A)- XXXIII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. 2. Ground No.1…