Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. DCIT (

189 ITR 182Reported decision#19637 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2020.

Judgments citing Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. DCIT (

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…oner of Agricultural Income-tax vs. Kailas Rubber Company Limited (60 ITR 435 ) (SC). 2)Kalpetta Estate Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never considered for Central Income Tax and the question thereon was whether any capital gains arise on sale of rubber t…

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…oner of Agricultural Income-tax vs. Kailas Rubber Company Limited (60 ITR 435 ) (SC). 2)Kalpetta Estate Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never considered for Central Income Tax and the question thereon was whether any capital gains arise on sale of rubber t…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…oner of Agricultural Income-tax vs. Kailas Rubber Company Limited (60 ITR 435 ) (SC). 2)Kalpetta Estate Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never considered for Central Income Tax and the question thereon was whether any capital gains arise on sale of rubber t…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…oner of Agricultural Income-tax vs. Kailas Rubber Company Limited (60 ITR 435 ) (SC). 2)Kalpetta Estate Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never considered for Central Income Tax and the question thereon was whether any capital gains arise on sale of rubber t…

Limited vs. CIT (221 ITR 601) (SC) 3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. DCIT ( (189 ITR 182) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax