Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT

105 ITR 627High Court1976#13200 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT

M/S. Dewan Chand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2408/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Dewan Chand Jcit S-11, Greater Kailash-Ii, Vs Range-38,Civic Centre, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaifm0046J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. T. P. S. Kang, Advocate Ms. Palak Nenwani, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2019 Order

Section 19Section 199

…t income to tax. He accordingly submitted that both the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) are not justified. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Janatha Contract Company Vs. CIT reported in 105 ITR 627, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Mehta Construction Company and others reported in 101 CCH 0066 and the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in the case of Dr. Prabhu Dayal Yadav Vs. CIT. 6. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival arguments made by b…

M/S Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders P. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 686/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

…settled that when a right arises as a result of contract or agreement the accrual of right would depend upon terms of agreement. A useful reference may be made to the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Janatha Contract Co. V/s CIT reported in (1976) 105 ITR 627 where it is held as under “As the assessee had been following the mercantile system of accounting. If the money had become due during the accounting period it would be income which would have to be taken into account in determining total income of the assessee. But the question whether the money had become due and whether income had accrued woul…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S White Cliff Properties (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 251

…would not make the receipt liable to be paid to persons other than, those are entitled to receive it on the date on which it is actually received or became receivable.” Similar are the judgments in the cases reported in 179 ITR 8 (Cal), 247 ITR 457 (Guj) and 105 ITR 627 (Ker). 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddhart Bhai vs. CIT 56 ITR 509, at page 522, held as follows: “The court proceeded on the basis that in working out capital gain or loss, the principles which had to be applied are those which are a part of commercial practice or which an ordinary man of business would resort to when mak…

Ashtvinayaka Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3883/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…s envisaged in Income Tax. The following are cases wherein Retention Money is allowed as deduction: ClT v. Simplex Concrete Piles {India} Pvt.Ltd. 179 ITR 8) (Cal.) ClT v. Chanchani Bros (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. 161 ITR 418 (Patna) Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT (105 ITR 627)(Kerala) ClT v. Gajapathy Naidu (53 ITR 114) Supreme Court." The AO, after considering the contentions of the assessee, rejected the same by citing various reasons as has been enumerated in para 11.3 of the 8 I . T . A . N o . 3 8 2 1 / M u m / 2 0 1 5 a n d 3 8 8 3 / M / 2 0 1 5 assessment order and finally added Rs. 6,88,85,000/- to the total…

DCIT Cir 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Ashtavinayaka Construction, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3821/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Noble Consolidated Glazings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Kumar, Dy. CITFor Respondent: 22.06.2017

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘D’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.26/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Noble Consolidated Glazings Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income No.5, Second Link Street, Vs. Tax, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AACCN 5454A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant b…

ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai vs. Prakash C. Kanugo, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

ITA 5223/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Anandi VermaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…er alia, CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)). Further, even where so, the province of the hon’ble court is to restore the matter back to the tribunal, stating its reasons, as clarified by the hon’ble court in Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 627 (Ker), following the binding decisions by the apex court in CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Mollasses & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC). The authorities on the law in the matter could in fact be multiplied. Then, again, we wonder, rather than reading down the provision, so as to operate to negate the…