Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (

320 ITR 720High Court#15621 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 145(2)Section 14ASection 28(iv)Section 43ASection 43AA

Judgments citing Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Il and Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1694/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Assessee & Revenue For Ay-2018-19 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated In Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 IL & FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, KPR Tower, 4th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AABCF1176A] Corporate Cir…

Il&Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

…n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Co, Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 116 1 TR 1, (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd vs CIT 60 ITR 405 and (3) Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Garden Silk Mills vs DCIT 320 ITR 720. 7.4.13. Let’s analyse these 3 case laws and see if they are applicable to the facts of the case. (1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Co Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1: "The law may, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that where profit or loss arises to an assessee on account of appreciation or depreciation in the value…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. M/S. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(2), M/S Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Tulsi Krupa Araade, Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Near Aai Mata Chowk, Majuragate, Surat – 395010. Surat-395001. Pan : Aaacg8932C Assessee/ Appellant Revenue/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…oreign exchange fluctuation as ‘revenue receipt’ was reversed to ‘capital receipt’. The ld. CIT(A) while reversing the treatment relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case PCIT vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. reported vide 320 ITR 720. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the borrowing of the assessee on which the assessee made 2 M/s Garden Silk Mills Ltd. (AY 2012-13) hatching contract was for the purpose of importing capital asset and that surplus earned upon cancellation of such contract will partake the character of capital receipt. Thus, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…s before the CIT(Appeals). i) P. Ganesh Chettiary vs. CIT (133 ITR 103)[Mad.] ii) AVM Ltd. vs. CIT (146 ITR 355) iii) Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). iv) Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 644) v) Garden Silk Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (320 ITR 720 (Guj.) 19.3 The CIT(Appeals) observed that the above case laws are all in support of the assessee’s case that sec.28(iv) has no application to a money transaction and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case under consideration. In view of the above findings, the CIT (Appeals) observed that the profit on buyback of FCCB to the ext…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…s before the CIT(Appeals). i) P. Ganesh Chettiary vs. CIT (133 ITR 103)[Mad.] ii) AVM Ltd. vs. CIT (146 ITR 355) iii) Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). iv) Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 644) v) Garden Silk Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (320 ITR 720 (Guj.) 19.3 The CIT(Appeals) observed that the above case laws are all in support of the assessee’s case that sec.28(iv) has no application to a money transaction and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case under consideration. In view of the above findings, the CIT (Appeals) observed that the profit on buyback of FCCB to the ext…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…s before the CIT(Appeals). i) P. Ganesh Chettiary vs. CIT (133 ITR 103)[Mad.] ii) AVM Ltd. vs. CIT (146 ITR 355) iii) Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). iv) Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 644) v) Garden Silk Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (320 ITR 720 (Guj.) 19.3 The CIT(Appeals) observed that the above case laws are all in support of the assessee’s case that sec.28(iv) has no application to a money transaction and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case under consideration. In view of the above findings, the CIT (Appeals) observed that the profit on buyback of FCCB to the ext…