Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) v. CIT

107 ITR 347Reported decision1977#21916 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) v. CIT

Fortis Hospitals Ltd vs. ACIT Circle 9(2) New Delhi

ITA-132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…s. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad.); 10. He further submits that even otherwise, non-compete fee, being an ‘intangible asset’, is entitled for claim of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He submits that the Sharp Business System (supra) is not correctly decided and is pendin…

Fortis Hospitals Ltd

ITA/132/2021HC Delhi29 Jul 2021

Bench: The Learned

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 254(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)

…s. G.M. Chennabasappa: 35 ITR 261 (AP); (iii) Pokhraj Hirachand vs. CIT: 49 ITR 293 (Bom.); (iv) The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs. CIT: 13 ITR 272 (Bom.); (v) Chandulal Lallubhai (HUF) vs. CIT: 139 ITR 642, 649- 50 (Guj.); (vi) Rajgarhia vs. ITO: 107 ITR 347; and (vii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad.); 10. He further submits that even otherwise, non-compete fee, being an ‘intangible asset’, is entitled for claim of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He submits that the Sharp Business System (supra) is not correctly decided and is pendin…

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

…Calcutta High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. R.L. Rajghoria [1979] 119 ITR 872. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the Order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition in R.L. Rajghoria Vs. Income-Tax Officer [1977] 107 ITR 347 held that the word ‘thereon’ appearing in Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 akin to Section 254 (1) of the Income Tax, 1961 restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject matter of the appeal and there is no doubt that the Tribunal has powers of remanding a case to the lower Appellate Authority or the Assessing Authority…