Jamshedpur Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT

32 ITR 41High Court1957#24457 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing Jamshedpur Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…gally the property would be in the occupation of the owner though not in its physical occupation. In taking this view, the Court sought to derive support from a decision of the Patna High Court in Jamshedpur Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 41 (Pat) : TC 16R.1127, holding that letting of the property for residence by the assessee-company to its employees being subservient to the main business of the company, their occupation is to be taken as of the assessee. 11. In New Bank of India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), the said bank originally had its head office at Lahore but at the time of partition…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…gally the property would be in the occupation of the owner though not in its physical occupation. In taking this view, the Court sought to derive support from a decision of the Patna High Court in Jamshedpur Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 41 (Pat) : TC 16R.1127, holding that letting of the property for residence by the assessee-company to its employees being subservient to the main business of the company, their occupation is to be taken as of the assessee. 11. In New Bank of India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), the said bank originally had its head office at Lahore but at the time of partition…

Max Financial Service Limited, Nawanshahr vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 121/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e of business of the assessee, for the purpose of business of the assessee and hence to be assessed under the head ‘business income’. He drew our attention in this regard to the following decisions: 1) Jamdeshpur Engineering & Machine Manufacturing Company, 32 ITR 41 2. CIT Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1966) 59 ITR 152 3. CIT Vs. Mcleod & Co.,(1993) 203 ITR 290 (Cal) 4) CIT Vs. Modi Industries Limited,(1994) 210 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) 5) CIT Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (1994) 207 ITR 392(Mad) 13 A.Y.2015-16 16. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that all the facts being duly disclosed to the AO and…

Jamshedpur Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (32 ITR 41) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax