Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 195, Section 37(1), Section 132, Section 143(2).

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited?

64 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited (223 ITR 112), spanning 2006 to 2026.

223 ITR 112High Court1997#1782 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited authority for?

The issuance of bonus shares by capitalizing profits does not result in an increase in the company's capital employed or an expansion of its profit-making apparatus.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited · CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. · bonus shares · capitalization of profits · capital employed · profit making apparatus

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 377

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 195 Section 37(1)Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 153cof section 10(2)(xv)section 43b(f)section 145(1)section 5(2)section 46 section 9(1)(i)section 35d interest free advances maximum marginal rate section 40a(2)(b)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited

Scott R.Bayman vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Del

ITA/285/2003HC Delhi17 Aug 2012

Section 131Section 143(1)(a)Section 17Section 2

…ITA No.285/2003 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 09.08.2012 DECIDED ON : 17.08.2012 + ITA 285/2003 SCOTT R.BAYMAN ..... Appellant Through : Mr. S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Ms. Preeti Goel and Ms. Roohina Dua, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,DEL ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…f the fluctuation in the rat of exchange”. 36. In a large number of decisions of the High Courts, the adjustments of the actual cost of the asset was allowed under Section 43-A of the Act. These include CIT -vs- Motor Industries Company Ltd., 229 ITR 137 (Karnataka), CIT -vs- Madras Fertilisers Ltd., 124 Taxman 581 (Madras), Usha Beltron (Patna), New India Industries Ltd. (Guj.) and Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (Bombay). In the last mentioned case, the Bombay High Court has followed Arvind Mills and interpreted Section 43-A in the following words with which we entirely concur (ITR p.101…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. M/S. General Insurance Corpn.of India

C.A. No.-004422-004422 - 2001Supreme Court25 Sept 2006

For Respondent: M/s General Insurance Corporation

Section 143Section 260Section 81

…laced upon the judgments of this Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC). He also relied upon in CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (1998) 229 ITR 137 of Karnataka High Court, in CIT vs. Ajit Mills Limited, (1994) 210 ITR 658, Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd., vs. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 358 of Gujarat High Court & Union Carbide India Ltd., vs. CIT, (1993) 203 ITR 584 of Calcutta High Court. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contends that undoubtedly increase in sha…