Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Total Oil India Private Limited

104 ITR 1High Court1976#14710 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2023.

Judgments citing Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Total Oil India Private Limited

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…Pvt. Ltd. provisions contained under section 115-O as has been paid by the assessee.” 53. The answer to the aforesaid question has been given by the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 104 ITR 1 (Mumbai) (Trib) by returning following findings: “81. If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should have agreed specifically in the DTAA to that effect. In the Treaty between India and Hungary, the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax. It has been specifically provided i…

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

…Pvt. Ltd. provisions contained under section 115-O as has been paid by the assessee.” 53. The answer to the aforesaid question has been given by the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 104 ITR 1 (Mumbai) (Trib) by returning following findings: “81. If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should have agreed specifically in the DTAA to that effect. In the Treaty between India and Hungary, the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax. It has been specifically provided i…

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1681/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)Section 92C

…er, the AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee. While referring to the amendment in the provisions of section 32 of the Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Warehousing Corporation,104 ITR 1 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd.,155 ITR 711 as also the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of United Phosphours Ltd. vs. JCIT (2001) 73 TTJ 404 (Ahd), the AO reduced the claim for depreciation on the basis of his own findings in the AY 2001-02. 3. On appe…

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

…assessees and it cannot be thrusted upon the assessees. Following passage from the said judgment was relied upon by the learned senior counsel: “40. We do not think that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Warehousing Corpn. [(1976) 104 ITR 1 (Guj)] has taken the correct view in respect of the issues with which we are concerned in the present appeal. The High Court has not properly appreciated the context in which this Court made observations in the case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. [(1966) 59 ITR 555 : AIR 1966 SC 1187] on which the High Court has relied. In the l…

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 114JSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 32oSection 42Section 80

…ciation as the depreciation of the subsequent years has been specifically made subject to the provisions of section 72(2) and 73(3) (Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. vs CIT) 12 (1979) 117 ITR 132, 135 (Karnatka) and CIT vs Gujarat State warehousing corporation (1976) 104 ITR 1(Guj.). Thus, if an assessee has unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32(2) of the Act as well as unabsorbed business loss carried forward u/s 72(1), section 72(2) provided the unabsorbed losses shall have precedence, and be set off first, so far as the sufficiency of income to be set off against permits. It is only after the carried forward business loss is…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…facts of this case for the year in question the Tribunal and the authorities below were right in holding that no depreciation could be deducted in computing the agricultural income." In CIT vs. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation [(1976) 104 ITR 1 (Guj.)] the question before the Court was regarding priorities adjustment as between the current depreciation, carried forward depreciation and carried forward losses against the profits and gains of business for the current year in view of the provisions contained in Sections 32(2) and 72(2) of the Act. For the Assessment Yea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Total Oil India Private Limited (104 ITR 1) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax