Co Ltd. 142 ITR 141 (Ca 3 Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co. Ltd 140 ITR 725 (All.) 4 CIT v. Muir Mills Co Ltd.

141 ITR 620High Court1983#13406 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Co Ltd. 142 ITR 141 (Ca 3 Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co. Ltd 140 ITR 725 (All.) 4 CIT v. Muir Mills Co Ltd.

Manglam Arts, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250

…d reliance on the following case laws :- (1) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. Vs. CIT(1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC) (2) Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) (3) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) (4) CIT Vs. O.P.N. Arunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620 (Madras) (HC) While concluding, the ld. A/R submitted that from the above decisions it is evident that when the litigation expenditure is incurred to protect the business, the same is revenue expenditure. In the present case, the assessee is not the owner of asset but it is possessing the asset from where it is conducting its business. Thus, th…

ACIT 1 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 111/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…ade, are allowable as business expenditure. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. Dalmia Jain & Co Ltd vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) 3. CIT vs O.P.N. Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer, learned departmental representative s…

Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT RG. 1 (1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 7853/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…ade, are allowable as business expenditure. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. Dalmia Jain & Co Ltd vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) 3. CIT vs O.P.N. Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the assessing officer, learned departmental representative s…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Managed Information Services P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 566/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Managed Information Services Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd., “Pottipati” Plaza, 5Th Floor, Company Circle Iv(1), Chennai - 600 034. No.77, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaccm 7680 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Murugaboopathy, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 566/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Managed Information Services Income Tax, v. Pvt. Ltd., “Pottipati” Plaza, 5th floor, Company Circle IV(1), Chennai - 600 034. No.77, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AACCM 7680 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…Case Law Citation No. 1 Bilasraijharmal (HUF) v CIT 9 taxman179 (Bom) 2 CIT v Indo Burmah Petroleum Co Ltd. 142 ITR 141 (Ca 3 Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co. Ltd 140 ITR 725 (All.) 4 CIT v Muir Mills Co Ltd 148 ITR 418 (All.) 5 CIT v O P N Arunachalla Nadar 141 ITR 620 (Mad) 6 CIT v Card Board Products 96 taxman282 (Pat) 24. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. The main reason for not allowing the assessee’s claim for legal expenses debited to the P&L account by the AO is that, firstly, these legal expenses pertain to dispute between Indian Promoter…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…Case Law Citation No. 1 Bilasraijharmal (HUF) v CIT 9 taxman179 (Bom) 2 CIT v Indo Burmah Petroleum Co Ltd. 142 ITR 141 (Ca 3 Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co. Ltd 140 ITR 725 (All.) 4 CIT v Muir Mills Co Ltd 148 ITR 418 (All.) 5 CIT v O P N Arunachalla Nadar 141 ITR 620 (Mad) 6 CIT v Card Board Products 96 taxman282 (Pat) 24. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. The main reason for not allowing the assessee’s claim for legal expenses debited to the P&L account by the AO is that, firstly, these legal expenses pertain to dispute between Indian Promoter…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…Case Law Citation No. 1 Bilasraijharmal (HUF) v CIT 9 taxman179 (Bom) 2 CIT v Indo Burmah Petroleum Co Ltd. 142 ITR 141 (Ca 3 Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co. Ltd 140 ITR 725 (All.) 4 CIT v Muir Mills Co Ltd 148 ITR 418 (All.) 5 CIT v O P N Arunachalla Nadar 141 ITR 620 (Mad) 6 CIT v Card Board Products 96 taxman282 (Pat) 24. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. The main reason for not allowing the assessee’s claim for legal expenses debited to the P&L account by the AO is that, firstly, these legal expenses pertain to dispute between Indian Promoter…

Co Ltd. 142 ITR 141 (Ca 3 Rampur Distillery & Chemicals Co. Ltd 140 ITR 725 (All.) 4 CIT v. Muir Mills Co Ltd. (141 ITR 620) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax