(i) CIT v. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.

122 ITR 767High Court1980#11046 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VIRAT INVESTMENT AND MERCA

ITA/37/2005HC Delhi19 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 57

…e circumstances, for the later years, there could have been no question for different treatment. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as CIT v. M Ethurajan (2005) 273 ITR 95 (Mad.); CIT v. Model Manufacturing Company, (1990) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). 7. In the present case, shorn of complexities which followed the transaction, LIC Mutual Funds financed the assessee’s acquisition of the debentures which it invested in. No doubt, in the first instance, the LIC Mutual Funds was an allotee. This appears to be one of the importa…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. M/S VIRAT INVESTMENT & MERCANT

ITA/636/2004HC Delhi19 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 57

…e circumstances, for the later years, there could have been no question for different treatment. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as CIT v. M Ethurajan (2005) 273 ITR 95 (Mad.); CIT v. Model Manufacturing Company, (1990) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). 7. In the present case, shorn of complexities which followed the transaction, LIC Mutual Funds financed the assessee’s acquisition of the debentures which it invested in. No doubt, in the first instance, the LIC Mutual Funds was an allotee. This appears to be one of the importa…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. M/S VIRAT INVESTMENT & MERCANT

ITA/709/2004HC Delhi19 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 143Section 57

…e circumstances, for the later years, there could have been no question for different treatment. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as CIT v. M Ethurajan (2005) 273 ITR 95 (Mad.); CIT v. Model Manufacturing Company, (1990) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). 7. In the present case, shorn of complexities which followed the transaction, LIC Mutual Funds financed the assessee’s acquisition of the debentures which it invested in. No doubt, in the first instance, the LIC Mutual Funds was an allotee. This appears to be one of the importa…

SH. RAJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 PAN: AAGPJ 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 14.02.2014 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.). 2. Facts of the c…

FAIR EXPORTS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-9 are dismissed and the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are partly allowed

ITA 6015/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhare
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155J

…monies for acquiring the shares held as investment can be construed as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning dividend, we may refer to the following decisions (i) CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal) wherein it was held : "that though the ultimate or ulterior motive of the assessee might have been to confer controlling interest either to itself or to NK and TK, the immediate purpose for acquisition of the shares was to earn income from the dividends thereof and the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the interest was deductib…

FAIR EXPORTS (I) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T, RANGE 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-9 are dismissed and the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are partly allowed

ITA 5378/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhare
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155J

…monies for acquiring the shares held as investment can be construed as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning dividend, we may refer to the following decisions (i) CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal) wherein it was held : "that though the ultimate or ulterior motive of the assessee might have been to confer controlling interest either to itself or to NK and TK, the immediate purpose for acquisition of the shares was to earn income from the dividends thereof and the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the interest was deductib…

FAIR EXPORTS (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-9 are dismissed and the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are partly allowed

ITA 899/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhare
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155J

…monies for acquiring the shares held as investment can be construed as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning dividend, we may refer to the following decisions (i) CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal) wherein it was held : "that though the ultimate or ulterior motive of the assessee might have been to confer controlling interest either to itself or to NK and TK, the immediate purpose for acquisition of the shares was to earn income from the dividends thereof and the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the interest was deductib…

FAIR EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-9 are dismissed and the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are partly allowed

ITA 1881/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhare
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155J

…monies for acquiring the shares held as investment can be construed as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning dividend, we may refer to the following decisions (i) CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal) wherein it was held : "that though the ultimate or ulterior motive of the assessee might have been to confer controlling interest either to itself or to NK and TK, the immediate purpose for acquisition of the shares was to earn income from the dividends thereof and the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the interest was deductib…

FAIR EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-9 are dismissed and the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are partly allowed

ITA 1880/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhare
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155J

…monies for acquiring the shares held as investment can be construed as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning dividend, we may refer to the following decisions (i) CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal) wherein it was held : "that though the ultimate or ulterior motive of the assessee might have been to confer controlling interest either to itself or to NK and TK, the immediate purpose for acquisition of the shares was to earn income from the dividends thereof and the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the interest was deductib…

(i) CIT v. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (122 ITR 767) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax