What is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

How many judgments cite Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

622 judgments on BharatTax cite Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 37, Section 14A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 234A.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1)

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

…Bank of India in giving subsidies to the State Bank of Saurashtra, the State Bank of Patiala, etc., under section 48(1) of the said Act of 1959, represented revenue expenditure. Lastly, we may mention that in the case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee, need not necessarily be capital expenditure in relation to a payer. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the argument of the Department that because the subsidy is not income in the hands of the payee, it cannot be revenue expenditure in relat…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

…Bank of India in giving subsidies to the State Bank of Saurashtra, the State Bank of Patiala, etc., under section 48(1) of the said Act of 1959, represented revenue expenditure. Lastly, we may mention that in the case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee, need not necessarily be capital expenditure in relation to a payer. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the argument of the Department that because the subsidy is not income in the hands of the payee, it cannot be revenue expenditure in relat…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

…Bank of India in giving subsidies to the State Bank of Saurashtra, the State Bank of Patiala, etc., under section 48(1) of the said Act of 1959, represented revenue expenditure. Lastly, we may mention that in the case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee, need not necessarily be capital expenditure in relation to a payer. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the argument of the Department that because the subsidy is not income in the hands of the payee, it cannot be revenue expenditure in relat…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

…Bank of India in giving subsidies to the State Bank of Saurashtra, the State Bank of Patiala, etc., under section 48(1) of the said Act of 1959, represented revenue expenditure. Lastly, we may mention that in the case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee, need not necessarily be capital expenditure in relation to a payer. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the argument of the Department that because the subsidy is not income in the hands of the payee, it cannot be revenue expenditure in relat…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA

Section 147

…Bank of India in giving subsidies to the State Bank of Saurashtra, the State Bank of Patiala, etc., under section 48(1) of the said Act of 1959, represented revenue expenditure. Lastly, we may mention that in the case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee, need not necessarily be capital expenditure in relation to a payer. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the argument of the Department that because the subsidy is not income in the hands of the payee, it cannot be revenue expenditure in relat…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Vysya Bank Ltd

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

ITA/4/2015HC Karnataka02 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I.T.A. NO.4 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(3), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: THE VYSYA BANK LTD., (NOW ING VYSYA BANK LTD.,) ING VYSYA HOUSE NO.25, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560001 PAN:AABCT0529M. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR.…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7510/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…red view that commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by a businessman has to be examined from the perspective of business person and not from the perspective of a tax authority. 31. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) lay down the principle for determining whether an expenditure incurred is in the nature of revenue or capital held as under : “There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. What is material is to co…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…red view that commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by a businessman has to be examined from the perspective of business person and not from the perspective of a tax authority. 31. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Company Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) lay down the principle for determining whether an expenditure incurred is in the nature of revenue or capital held as under : “There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. What is material is to co…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Telco Construction

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

…ORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CIT, (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC), TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. VS. JCIT, 372 ITR 605, STEAM NAVIGATION CO, (1953) (P) LTD. VS. CIT, (1965) 56 ITR 52 and EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). 11 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’ (1992) 60 TAXMAN 248 (SC) has held that even though principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings, but where a fundamental asp…

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…T, (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del); iii) Shyam Buriap Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 151 (Calcutta); iv) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 39; v) CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); vi) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC); 14 vii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC); viii) Airport Authority of India vs. CIT (2012) 340 ITR 407 (Del); ix) CIT, Bombay vs. Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd.; x) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 282 (Gujarat); xi) CIT vs. M/s Shriram Builcons Ltd. ITA No.39,53,60,65 of 2006. xii) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997…

Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10 (2)(2) Earlier DCIT 8 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6931/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 6931 & 6932/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2013-14) Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, 10(2)(2) Earlier Dcit Ltd. 8(2) Vs. Amar Mahal, Gr. Floor, Room No.209, Aayakar Anandrao Deole Marg, Near Bhavan, M. K. Road, Chandan Cinema, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm1017B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Y. P. Trivdedi Shri D. C. Jain Revenue By: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2013-14. Ita. No.6931/M/2019

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. TrivdediFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal (Sr. AR)

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 6931 & 6932/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2013-14) Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. बिधम/ DCIT, 10(2)(2) Earlier DCIT Ltd. 8(2) Vs. Amar Mahal, Gr. Floor, Room No.209, Aayakar Anandrao Deole Marg, Near Bhavan, M. K. Road, Chandan Cinema, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCM1017B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Y. P. Trivdedi Shri D. C. Jain Revenue by: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal (Sr. AR…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1521/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for business of the assessee and revenue expenditure. Such expenses cannot be construed as a capital expenses. …………….. 22. The principle was considered by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 11. In the said case, the Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle lai…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1520/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for business of the assessee and revenue expenditure. Such expenses cannot be construed as a capital expenses. …………….. 22. The principle was considered by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 11. In the said case, the Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle lai…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for business of the assessee and revenue expenditure. Such expenses cannot be construed as a capital expenses. …………….. 22. The principle was considered by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 11. In the said case, the Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle lai…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1518/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for business of the assessee and revenue expenditure. Such expenses cannot be construed as a capital expenses. …………….. 22. The principle was considered by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 11. In the said case, the Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle lai…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1517/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for business of the assessee and revenue expenditure. Such expenses cannot be construed as a capital expenses. …………….. 22. The principle was considered by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 11. In the said case, the Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle lai…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for business of the assessee and revenue expenditure. Such expenses cannot be construed as a capital expenses. …………….. 22. The principle was considered by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 11. In the said case, the Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle lai…

Kids Clinic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 784/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 M/S.Kids Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1533, 9Th Main, Range - 5,Bengaluru. 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aacck 7678 R Assesseee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. Tshering Ongda, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 19.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.1.2021 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…e assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account even though the advantage may endure for indefinite future — Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] (124 ITR 1, 10) (SC) - If the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business, it properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of capital expenditure. If on the other hand, it is made not for the purpose of bringing into existence, any such asset or advantage but for running…

M/S Green Pearl Electronics P Ltd, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. Pan: Aancs 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी "यायाधीश पी.पी. भ", अ"य" एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद$य के सम" BEFORE SHRI JUSTICE P.P.BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. PAN: AANCS 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.N.Arun Raj, C.A, अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/…

M/S Green Pearl Electronics P Ltd, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. Pan: Aancs 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी "यायाधीश पी.पी. भ", अ"य" एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद$य के सम" BEFORE SHRI JUSTICE P.P.BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. PAN: AANCS 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.N.Arun Raj, C.A, अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/…

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Vysya Bank Ltd

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Telco Construction

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10 (2)(2) Earlier DCIT 8 (2), Mumbai

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

Kids Clinic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

M/S Green Pearl Electronics P Ltd, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

M/S Green Pearl Electronics P Ltd, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai