Executors & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir v. CIT

35 ITR 537High Court1959#24603 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(19AA)Section 2(22)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 45Section 47(vib)

Judgments citing Executors & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir v. CIT

JCIT(OSD), Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (India) Ltd, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

…iness for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80- IB(10) of the Act. Section 80-IB(10) of the Act has to be applied only for the definite and limited purpose for which it is created. In the case of Executors & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 537 ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 42– (Bom), it has been explained that unless it is clearly and expressly provided, it is not permissible to impose a supposition on a supposition of law. It is not permissible to sub-join or track a fiction upon fiction. In the light of…

Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

…iness for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80- IB(10) of the Act. Section 80-IB(10) of the Act has to be applied only for the definite and limited purpose for which it is created. In the case of Executors & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 537 ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 42– (Bom), it has been explained that unless it is clearly and expressly provided, it is not permissible to impose a supposition on a supposition of law. It is not permissible to sub-join or track a fiction upon fiction. In the light of…

M/S Gie Jewels, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 794/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (J.CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 208Section 234Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 794/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke M/s GIE Jewels, Income Tax officer, Vs. F-33, Phase-2, SEZ RIICO Ward-2(1), Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKFG0497P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 795/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke M/s GIE J…