Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT

118 ITR 243Supreme Court of India1979#5173 most cited

What is Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT authority for?

The deduction under Section 80HH is calculated on gross profits and gains, before applying specific income computation sections. This was established by distinguishing it from the treatment of dividends under Section 80M.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Cloth Traders P Ltd v Addl CIT · 118 ITR 243 SC · Section 80HH · Section 80M · deduction on gross profits · dividend income · intercorporate dividends

Judgments citing Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT

Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisioner Incomer Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

…ntext of section 80M ought not have been relied on by the Supreme Court in the context of section 80HH. The Supreme Court after discussing all the earlier judgements of the Supreme Court i.e. Cambay Electric Supply [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC), Cloth Traders [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC), Distributor Baroda [1085] 155 ITR 120 (SC), HH Sir Ram Verma [1994] 205 ITR 433 (SC), Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd [1997] 224 ITR 604 (SC) concluded as under: "19) Reading of Section 80HH along with Section 80A would clearly signify' that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the i…

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

…ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 126, ITBP Road DCIT Hoody, Whitefield Circle-7(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 048 Bangalore PAN NO : AACCV3079R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appe…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1185/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – AACCB 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCB 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue by: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date of hearing: 05/0…

Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1137/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – AACCB 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCB 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue by: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date of hearing: 05/0…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1243/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…income has to be deducted. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that allowing the deduction for commission at 50 per cent of the receipts is justified. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC), which was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120. Following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Loonkar Tools (P.) Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 721, DBITR Application No. 1 of 1987, decided at Jodhpur on 21-7-1994, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justi…

M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1178/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…income has to be deducted. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that allowing the deduction for commission at 50 per cent of the receipts is justified. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC), which was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120. Following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Loonkar Tools (P.) Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 721, DBITR Application No. 1 of 1987, decided at Jodhpur on 21-7-1994, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justi…

Apne Aap Women Worlwide (India) Trust, Kolkatta vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7373/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7373/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Apne Aap Women Worldwide (India) Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1) बनाम/ 1, Sashitala Road, Kidderpore Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kolkata-700 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8473-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.Dr : Shashi Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…rt has held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CWT vs. Meattles (p) Ltd. 156 ITR 569 has held that the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a view of statutory provisions in the later year. Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable ii. Regarding violation of provisions of section 13, the appellant submitted that the payment made to…

The Fine Arts Society, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 189/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…, in the case of British Paints (188 ITR 44), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CWT vs. Meattles (p) Ltd. 156 ITR 569 has held that the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a view of statutory provisions in the later year In another case or CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years doe…

The Fine Arts Society, Mumbai vs. Dy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 2171/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…, in the case of British Paints (188 ITR 44), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CWT vs. Meattles (p) Ltd. 156 ITR 569 has held that the revenue authorities cannot be stopped from taking a view of statutory provisions in the later year In another case or CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years doe…

Hershey India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1409/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 80M

…income, that the concept had to be understood and applied in reference to dividend and income by way of dividend which was used in various provisions of the Act.He referred to the cases of Distributor (Baroda)Private Ltd.(22 taxman 49),Cloth Traders P Limited(118 ITR 243),ACG Associates Capsules P Ltd. (343 ITR 89) and the provisions of section 80M of the Act along with the circular No. 5, dated 11/02/2014. He further argued that in section 10(34) of the Act it was income by way of dividend and not the receipt of dividend which was exempt. 2.3.Before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…idend in this landmark judgement. (c) The Hon’ble Constitutional bench of Supreme Court while dealing with the construction of sec. 80M of the Act, overturned, its earlier decision of 3 Member Bench in the case of Cloth Traders ( P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 and observed that “To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. A.M.Y. Delameterat page 18: "a Judge ought to be wise enough to know-that he is fallible and therefore ever ready to learn : grea…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

Addl.Ci.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

Addl.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

M/S. Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…9, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 10 of 42 compute total income of the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act i.e. in accordance with all the provisions except sec.80E. Earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (118 ITR 243) was overruled. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Verma vs. CIT (205 ITR 433) held that in the context of deduction u/s 80E long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years has to be first set off against long term gains of curre…

CIT vs. Kribhco

ITA - 444 / 2011HC Delhi18 Jul 2012
Section 14ASection 2(45)Section 5Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80P(2)(d)

…from a domestic company. This was the same argument which found favour with the court in Cloth Traders' case [1979] 118 ITR 243, but on fuller consideration, we do not think it is well founded. We may assume with the court in Cloth Traders' case [1979] 118 ITR 243, that the words " where the gross total income of an assessee ... includes any income by way of dividends from a domestic company " are intended only to provide that a particular category of income, namely, income by way of dividends from a domestic company should form a component part of gross total income, irrespective of what is the q…

Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT (118 ITR 243) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax