Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi

98 ITR 568High Court1975#18546 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2442/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ransactions before the Hon'ble CBI Special Court. The Supreme Court in the case Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd (82 ITR 166) and the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" encompasses a wider meaning to include not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its representatives who act in the course of business. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law as it is…

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2444/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ransactions before the Hon'ble CBI Special Court. The Supreme Court in the case Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd (82 ITR 166) and the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" encompasses a wider meaning to include not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its representatives who act in the course of business. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law as it is…

KALAIGNAR TV PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2443/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ransactions before the Hon'ble CBI Special Court. The Supreme Court in the case Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd (82 ITR 166) and the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" encompasses a wider meaning to include not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its representatives who act in the course of business. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law as it is…

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1974 97 ITR 606 (Delhi) Criminal complaint against former managing 15 Hiranandani Akruti JV director for failure to account for amount belonging to the company-expenses for prosectuoin. 4) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1975) 98 ITR 568 (Delhi) [criminal case against director and employees for bribery-amount spent by company for defence of accused). 5) Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT, (1976) 104 ITR 631 (Cal) [expenses incurred in defending employees of the assessee-company in a criminal prosecution for violating Mines Regulations]. 6) CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd., (19…

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAEPM6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by M/s. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,DR राज"…

Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax