Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others

13 SCC 673Reported decision2007#14881 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. CI HOSPITALITY WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

…e entire expenditure distorts the profits of a particular year." Moreover, in CIT vs. Bilhari Investment (P) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court also took notice of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (2007) 13 SCC 673 in which it was held as under: "82. Matching concept is based on the accounting period concept. The paramount object of running a business is to earn profit. In order to ascertain the profit made by the business during a period, it is I.T.A. No.449/Lkw/2020 64 C.O.No.1/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 necessary that 'revenues of the period should…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. PANCHMUKHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Appeal is allowed and the

ITA/321/2022HC Delhi26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 140(1)(iii)Section 151

…FAO(OS) (COMM) 321/2022 Page 1 of 42 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 321/2022 & CM APPL. 53576-53579/2022 NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pravin Anand with Ms. Vaishali Mittal and Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Advocates. Mr. Rohin Koolwal, Mr. Rakesh Talukdar and Mr. Subro Prakash Mukherjee, Advocates. Versus GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal with Ms. Julien George, Ms.Sneha Jain, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Anu Paarcha, Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Mr.Vi…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. H. NAGARAJA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1150/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivasa Rao, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Naidu, Advocate
Section 263

…remitted the matter to the Tribunal by observing as under:- “6. Learned senior counsel for the assessee while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘J.K.Industries Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others’, (2007) 13 SCC 673 submitted that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of matching principle. However, the aforesaid contention has not been considered neither by the Tribunal nor the assessee has been afforded an opportunity. In this connection, counsel invited attention of this Court to Paragraph 17 of the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the r…

JAY METAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V,

ITA/308/2016HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…pose of giving an accurate description is to enable identification of the tenanted premises. In this regard, it would be instructive to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in Zarif Ahmad (dead) through legal representatives and Anr. v. Mohd. Farooq, (2015) 13 SCC 673, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: “11. Order 7 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), which pertains to the requirement of description of immovable property, reads as under: “3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property. – Where the subject-matter of the suit if immovable property, the plaint sh…

TRAVELPORT L.P., USA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 NEW DELHI

ITA/299/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…pose of giving an accurate description is to enable identification of the tenanted premises. In this regard, it would be instructive to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in Zarif Ahmad (dead) through legal representatives and Anr. v. Mohd. Farooq, (2015) 13 SCC 673, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: “11. Order 7 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), which pertains to the requirement of description of immovable property, reads as under: “3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property. – Where the subject-matter of the suit if immovable property, the plaint sh…

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal

COP/61/2015HC Karnataka10 Jul 2015

Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 139Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 260Section 260ASection 263

…ackground, this appeal has been filed by the assessee. 6. Learned senior counsel for the assessee while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘J.K.Industries Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others’, (2007) 13 SCC 673 submitted that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of matching principle. However, the aforesaid contention has not been considered neither by the Tribunal nor the assessee has been afforded an opportunity. In this connection, counsel invited attention of this Court to Paragraph 17 of the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel…

Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others (13 SCC 673) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax