(i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. v. ACIT

407 ITR 543High Court2018#17946 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 28Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 35ddasection 36(1)(ii)section 3(1)employees contribution to pfdisallowance of interest expenditurerule of consistencysection 36(1)(iii)revenue expendituresection 36(1)(va)section 28section 36(1)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. v. ACIT

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, LTU 1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1835/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1835/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 147

…ot provisions but actually incurred in normal course of business and hence, should be allowed under normal computation . The Ld CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Mad.) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Cements Ltd . The Department is in appeal against the deletion of above addition. :- 4 -: 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that assessee has claimed these expenditures as provisions, therefore being contingent cannot be allowed as deduction. The Ld DR further a…

SIDDHAYU AAURVEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// THE ACIT CIRCLE 34(3) (2) , DELHI

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…enditure/ proposed activity forms part of existing business and no new asset is created or fructified, the expenditure on such account is revenue in nature and placed reliance on the following decisions in this regard: • Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd V. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) • CIT v Graphite India Limited [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal HC) • CIT v Tata Robins Fraser Ltd [2012] 253 CTR 227 (Jharkhand HC) • Idea Cellular Ltd v Addl. CIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bom HC) • Binani Cement Ltd v. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Cal HC) 6.2.14 Thus, based on the above arguments, the Assessee has submitted that the assessee com…

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4369/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…loss on abandonment/write off of capital work in progress is an allowable business expenditure expenditure u/s. 28/37(1) of the Act. 46. In support of the above contentions she relied on the following case law: - (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) (Refer Pg. Nos.6 and 7, Para Nos. 25 and 26) (ii). Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.11 Para Nos. 11 to 13) (iii). CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (Refer Pg. No. 14, Para Nos. 9 and 10) (iv). CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.…

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…loss on abandonment/write off of capital work in progress is an allowable business expenditure expenditure u/s. 28/37(1) of the Act. 46. In support of the above contentions she relied on the following case law: - (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) (Refer Pg. Nos.6 and 7, Para Nos. 25 and 26) (ii). Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.11 Para Nos. 11 to 13) (iii). CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (Refer Pg. No. 14, Para Nos. 9 and 10) (iv). CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.…

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…loss on abandonment/write off of capital work in progress is an allowable business expenditure expenditure u/s. 28/37(1) of the Act. 46. In support of the above contentions she relied on the following case law: - (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) (Refer Pg. Nos.6 and 7, Para Nos. 25 and 26) (ii). Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.11 Para Nos. 11 to 13) (iii). CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (Refer Pg. No. 14, Para Nos. 9 and 10) (iv). CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.…

(i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. v. ACIT (407 ITR 543) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax