CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd.

219 ITR 644Supreme Court of India1996#4820 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 28(iv)Section 45(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)non-compete fee section 28(iv)section 28(i)section 43(1)commercial rights full value of consideration right to receive lack of enquiry section 45 section 48 section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd.

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saurabh Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 460/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Lalkaka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…indra Ltd. (supra) wherein the reliance has been placed on the decision in Alchemic (P) Ltd. (supra). It is also submitted by him that Alchemic (P) Ltd. (supra) has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 644. He further stated that there had been no allowance or deduction in respect of any of the preceding years and as such there is no question of applying the provision of section 41 of the Act. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Ltd. 267 ITR 770 (Guj). 6 7. We have he…

Radhika Mohan Kamat, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2), Mumbai

ITA 6623/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143Section 2(24)(iv)

…o third party by the company. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krishan Bans Bahadur vs CIT 316 ITR 411 (Del) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co Pvt Ltd 219 ITR 644 (SC). It was pleaded by him that full justice has not been given to this case by Ld. CIT(A). Neither the law has been properly appreciated nor has it been applied correctly and, therefore, the addition deserves to be deleted. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently opposed the submissions of the assessee and submitted that when the amount was given…

D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as the Cross Objection

ITA 4466/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vibhadeep Investment & Income Tax-3(3), Room Trading Ltd., Mafatlal House, No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar H. T. Parekh Marg, Backbay Bhavan, M. K. Road, Reclamation, Mumbai 400 Mumbai 400 020 020 Pan: Aaacv 1946 M Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.155/Mum/2013 (In Ita No.4466/Mum/2012- Ay: 2008-09)

Section 115JSection 143Section 28

…ot apply to cash receipt. When loan amounts to receipt in cash, it is not covered by the definition of section 28 (iv). In this connection, the learned AR relied upon the judicial pronouncement rendered in the case of CIT Vs Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. Ltd. [219 ITR 644 (SC)] and CIT Vs Alchemic P. Ltd. [130 ITR 168 (Guj). It was further submitted by the learned AR that waiver is capital account as the loan was utilized in shares of subsidiaries and in other companies. As the said loan was not taken for assessee’s trading, the write back thereof does not give any rise to any tradeable receipts. In this conne…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. The Motor & General Finance Lt

ITA/130/2007HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

…of, the Income-Tax Act, 1961?" TA 458 of 1984 & other connected matters Page 5 of 24 This question stands answered in favour of the assessee and againstthe Revenue in the case of Commissioner of llucome Tax Vs. MafatL'aI Gangabhaff and Co. (P) Ltd., 219 ITR 644. Another question which is referred by the Tribunal on the application of the assessee relates to assessee's claim that its sur- tax liability of T 42,850/- for this year should be deducted in the computation of its total income. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the assessee in the impugned order but on the -4' I application of…