J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

351 ITR 434High Court2013#14124 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2020.

Judgments citing J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 are partly allowed

ITA 2161/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…efore, ought to be strictly construed as such. 13. On the second question he submits that the issue is now covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 434/214 Taxman 52/31 taxmann.com 389 where the words 'total income' had been understood as total income as arrived at after providing for unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed losses of the earlier years and therefore after arriving at the total income, allowing the deduction to be made there from out of the total income is erroneous. 14. On the oth…

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 are partly allowed

ITA 2160/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…efore, ought to be strictly construed as such. 13. On the second question he submits that the issue is now covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 434/214 Taxman 52/31 taxmann.com 389 where the words 'total income' had been understood as total income as arrived at after providing for unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed losses of the earlier years and therefore after arriving at the total income, allowing the deduction to be made there from out of the total income is erroneous. 14. On the oth…

THE DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1573/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sinh &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 295(4)Section 80H

…ainst the assessee in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. Industries vs. ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 (Kar). 8.2 After hearing both parties in the matter, we hold this issue against the assessee, and uphold the orders of the authorities below following, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. In…

FORBES & COMPANY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FORBES GOKAK LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1382/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sinh &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 295(4)Section 80H

…ainst the assessee in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. Industries vs. ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 (Kar). 8.2 After hearing both parties in the matter, we hold this issue against the assessee, and uphold the orders of the authorities below following, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. In…

M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE JCIT OSD RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 6721/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115OSection 14ASection 80H

…even if the assessee’s contention had to be accepted then it would have resulted in a case of excess allowance to the assessee. The learned CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 351 ITR 434 in the case of J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble reported in [2007] 291 ITR 380 (SC) by holding that as per the aforesaid case laws, it is now settled that for the purpose of deduction u/s 80 HHC profits will have to be computed after giving full effect to other provisions of the Act, inc…

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 6580/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115OSection 14ASection 80H

…even if the assessee’s contention had to be accepted then it would have resulted in a case of excess allowance to the assessee. The learned CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 351 ITR 434 in the case of J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble reported in [2007] 291 ITR 380 (SC) by holding that as per the aforesaid case laws, it is now settled that for the purpose of deduction u/s 80 HHC profits will have to be computed after giving full effect to other provisions of the Act, inc…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (I) PVT LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and

ITA/251/2007HC Karnataka10 Jun 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

Section 260Section 260ASection 80ASection 80H

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA ITA NO.251/2007 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. …Appellants (By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate ) AND: M/s. Novell Software Development (I) Pvt. Ltd., No. 49/1 and 49/2, Garvebhavi Palya, 7th Mile, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 068.…

J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (351 ITR 434) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax