KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51 (10 SCC 1)

Q: What is KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51 authority for?

The judgment in Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. does not appear to be directly cited for a specific income tax proposition in the provided passages. The passages merely list it as one of several cases cited in subsequent judgments, without detailing its specific contribution to the legal reasoning.

Q: How many judgments cite KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51?

250 judgments on BharatTax cite KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51 (10 SCC 1), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51 come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1894, Section 1961, Section 270A, Section 10(37), Section 143(3), Section 45(5).

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/272/2013HC Kerala04 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260A

…oner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh and Others [(2007) 288 ITR 1], Patnaik and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1986) 27 Taxman 287) and Union of India I.T.A. No.272/13 -:8:- and Others v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others [(2003) 263 ITR 706:[(2004) 10 SCC 1] in support of his contentions. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the loss incurred by the assessee was on account of the loan availed for purchasing a capital asset in South Africa through the subsidiary companies and as it was intended for procuring a capital asset, the loss was not al…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 204 Taxman 408 / 17 taxmann.com_202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Mc Dowell& Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SC), Union of India v. AzadiBachaoAndolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decisions concluded as follows: "The majority judgment in McDowell held that “tax…

Deputy Inspector General vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…pon the judgment in Union 7 Notification No. GSR 610(E), Dated 8-8-1994 As Amended by Notification No. SO 1022(E), Dated 18-7-2005; No. S.O. 2031(E), Dated 1-9-2011 and No. S.O. 935(E), Dated 23-3-2017. 16 of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2004) 10 SCC 1 [“Azadi Bachao Andolan”] to argue that by virtue of section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, the DTAA would prevail over domestic law to the extent it is more beneficial to the deductor of tax under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. According to him, even assuming that under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act IBM India’s transaction would enta…