Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors.

144 ITR 225Supreme Court of India1983#13424 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors.

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

…was. The sole premise of interpretation is to decipher the legislative intent consistent with it’s object [Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC)(also see: CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC)). The legislative intent per s. 32(1)(iia) is to provide additional depreciation (of 20%) qua the eligible plant and machinery, with a view to provide a fillip to the industry, where put to use for the purpose. The condition of acquire and put to use, stated in s. 32(1)(iia), is basic to a claim of depreciation and, therefore, is to be read…

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…was. The sole premise of interpretation is to decipher the legislative intent consistent with it’s object [Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC)(also see: CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC)). The legislative intent per s. 32(1)(iia) is to provide additional depreciation (of 20%) qua the eligible plant and machinery, with a view to provide a fillip to the industry, where put to use for the purpose. The condition of acquire and put to use, stated in s. 32(1)(iia), is basic to a claim of depreciation and, therefore, is to be read…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1(1), Pune vs. M/S. Cummins Sales & Services (I), Ltd, (Formerly Known As Cummins Diesels Sales & Service Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 2121/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Morey
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 72ASection 72A(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2121/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Pune. Vs. M/s. Cummins Sales & Services (I) Ltd. (Formerly known as Cummins Diesels Sales & Services Ltd.), 35A/1/2, Erandwane, Pune- 411038. PAN : AAACC7262K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Shivraj B. Morey Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved Date of hearing : 02.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed…

Income Tax Officer, Hubli vs. M/S Kvg Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Dharwad

ITA 671/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarincome-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Kvg Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Co-Op Society Ltd., Shankar Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Dharwad. … Respondent Pan: Aaaak 7950 N

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Biju, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Balram Rao, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…02-TIOL-763-SC-IT. It is also trite that such a provision has to be construed as to effectuate the object of the Legislature and not to defeat it (See – Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 392; [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC) = 2002-TIOL-988-SC- IT. Therefore, it hardly needs to be emphasised that all those co- operative societies which fall within the purview of Section 80P of the Act are entitled to deduction in respect of any income referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) gives exemption of whole of the amount of profits and gains…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bagalkot vs. Shri Bapooji Pattin Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Bagalkot

ITA 827/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar G. Hegde, CA
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…02-TIOL-763-SC-IT. It is also trite that such a provision has to be construed as to effectuate the object of the Legislature and not to defeat it (See – Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 392; [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC) = 2002-TIOL-988- SC-IT. Therefore, it hardly needs to be emphasised that all those co-operative societies which fall within the purview of Section 80P of the Act are entitled to deduction in respect of any income referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) gives exemption of whole of the amount of profits and gains…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anantharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 142Section 69

…Officer to say with conviction that the appellant provisions u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. 19.1.8 The appellant relied on the following case laws in support of this ground: Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR IT (SC) 1. CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 144 ITR 225 (SC) 2. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. vs. JCIT 245 ITR 84 (Guj.) 3. ITO vs. Sheo Narain Jaiswal 176 ITR 352 (Patna) 4. CIT vs. Girnish Choudhary 256 ITR 919 (Del.) 5. CIT Ashwini Kumar vs. ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi Bench Hon’ble 6. Tribunal) 19.1.6 Besides the above, I also place reliance in the judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of…

Satish Gujral vs. Addl CIT Range -32

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3397/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 80RSection 80U

…submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that and AO has abdicated his power to ITO Balasore and has not made any enquiry on his own which is not permissible under law. In this connection, the ld. AR relied on the decisions in the case of 144 ITR 225-237 (SC), CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., 74 ITR 115 (Patna), Elphinstone Picture Palace vs. UOI. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that enquiry by ITO Balasore was made behind the assessee which cannot be used against the assessee in the absence of cross- examination. The ld. AR relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court repor…