Mumbai) 2. CIT v. Tata Hydro Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (

211 ITR 174High Court1995#23616 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,351 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Mumbai) 2. CIT v. Tata Hydro Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (

The Travancore Cochin Chemicals Limited, Udyogamandal vs. DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/COCH/1995[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: S/Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vp & Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 1992-93

…adjudication. The system of re-opening of accounts does not fit in with the scheme of the Income-tax Act. As far as receipts are concerned there can be no re-opening of accounts, and the position is the same in respect of expenses. 3) CIT v. Gurunathan (1995) 211 ITR 174 (Mad.) wherein it was held that the original agreement provided for payment of Rs.5,000 per mensem only in default. Since the assessee had claimed that the lease had been renewed, he had actually provided for the accepted rent of Rs.3,000 in the accounts. The landlord having disputed the claim of the assessee of the renewal of the lease, the matt…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai vs. United Metal Industries, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2439/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2439/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.A

…was that arrears of rent had crystallized during the relevant previous year. In such a situation, as per the assessee disallowance could not be made. Reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurunathan, 211 ITR 174. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was appreciative 4. of the above contentions. According to him, bank account of the assessee clearly reflected payment of "2,25,00,000/- after deducting tax of "25,00,000/-, to the lessor by way of Cheque No.26126396. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also noted that TDS amount of "25,00,000/- wa…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4822/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Co No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) Ito 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaact2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 41

…d on the following judicial pronouncements. 13 CO 193/Mum/2012 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., 1. Own subsidiary's case - M/s H V Axles Limited (ITA No. 4306/Muml2005)(ITAT Mumbai) 2. CIT v Tata Hydro Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (219 ITR 178) (Bom.) 3. CIT v Gurunathan (211 ITR 174 ) (Mad.) 4. Pereira and Roche v CIT (61 ITR 371) (Mad.) 32. It was vehemently argued by learned AR that wherever the intention of the legislature is to allow the deduction only on the basis of actual payment, the legislature has used different terminology. - Refer section 43B - "actually paid" - Section 35ABA - "payment actually made" 33. As per…