Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT 63 ITR 57 (SC). 2. Madhavji Dharmashingh Mfg Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

78 ITR 62Supreme Court of India#14425 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 293section 65asection 65b(4)section 153b(1)(b)section 74section 2(28a)section 73section 153(2a)section 153b(1)project completion methodinadequate enquiry

Judgments citing Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT 63 ITR 57 (SC). 2. Madhavji Dharmashingh Mfg Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Hm Clause India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 495/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mrs. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…and exclusively for the pul~r.sa of business. Merely because of the existence of an agreement, the Income-tax Officer is not bound to agree that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purpose of the business. In MadhowjlOharamshiMfg Co Ltd v CIT (78 ITR 62), the Supreme Court held that the appointments of the selling agent and the managing agent and the agreements to pay compensation for termination of their contracts formed a chain of sham or colourable transactions designed to withdraw large sums of tax free money. In JK Cotton Mfrs Ltd v CIT (101 ITR 221) it was held that the circumstances indicat…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…arned PCIT relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble 104 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. Supreme Court in the case of Madhowji Dharamshi Manufacturing Co. Ltd., vs., CIT 78 ITR 62 in which the assessment year involved was 1951-1952 which was prior to enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which do not deal with Sections 35 and 36 of this Act. Thus, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. He has submitted that investment made by assessee in A.Y. 2010-2011 is not disputed by the Learned PCIT and c…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…arned PCIT relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble 104 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. Supreme Court in the case of Madhowji Dharamshi Manufacturing Co. Ltd., vs., CIT 78 ITR 62 in which the assessment year involved was 1951-1952 which was prior to enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which do not deal with Sections 35 and 36 of this Act. Thus, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. He has submitted that investment made by assessee in A.Y. 2010-2011 is not disputed by the Learned PCIT and c…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…arned PCIT relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble 104 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. Supreme Court in the case of Madhowji Dharamshi Manufacturing Co. Ltd., vs., CIT 78 ITR 62 in which the assessment year involved was 1951-1952 which was prior to enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which do not deal with Sections 35 and 36 of this Act. Thus, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. He has submitted that investment made by assessee in A.Y. 2010-2011 is not disputed by the Learned PCIT and c…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…arned PCIT relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble 104 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. Supreme Court in the case of Madhowji Dharamshi Manufacturing Co. Ltd., vs., CIT 78 ITR 62 in which the assessment year involved was 1951-1952 which was prior to enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which do not deal with Sections 35 and 36 of this Act. Thus, this Judgment would not support the case of the Revenue. He has submitted that investment made by assessee in A.Y. 2010-2011 is not disputed by the Learned PCIT and c…

M/S. Motherson Sumi Infotech & Designs Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6331/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav RastogiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…following judgments which mainly pertained to the theory of “Form over substance”. The pages 169 to 172 of the same paper book contain the details :- 1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT 63 ITR 57 (SC). 2. Madhavji Dharmashingh Mfg Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 78 ITR 62 (SC). 3. JK Cotton Mfrs Ltd. vs., CIT 101 ITR 221. 4. Mcdowell & Co. Ltd Vs CTO 154 ITR 148 (S). 5. OECD guidelines. 3. The DRP rejected the contentions of the assessee regarding treatment of transactions on account of “outstanding receivables” because of the retrospective amendment of Section 92B(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 covered all such tra…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…n received for breach of an agreement for selling agency, was held to be taxable when the underlying agreement was found to be sham. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhowji Dharamshi Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. CIT [78 ITR 62]. 08. Ad libitum reply of the Ld. AR was that for invoking Section 263 of the Act, order of the AO should not only erroneous but also prejudicial to ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 11 the interests of the Revenue. According to him, just because an order was erroneous, revisionary jurisdiction could not be invoked here. As per the…

Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT 63 ITR 57 (SC). 2. Madhavji Dharmashingh Mfg Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (78 ITR 62) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax