Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

259 ITR 651High Court2002#24187 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

M/S FLAMINGO HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

ITA 64/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 250(6)Section 45

…noted that reliance placed by the AO on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Grace Collis &Ors. (supra) was misplaced since in a subsequent decision , the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of 4 Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 259 ITR 651, had categorically stated that decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Grace Collis (supra) was rendered in different set of facts and had not dealt on the issue of extinguishment of rights in assets particularly on destruction. Hon’ble Madras High Court held that therefore the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vania Silk Mil…

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7541/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. &nFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rans, CIT(DR)

…e regarded as extinguishment of any right therein as envisaged in Section 2(47) of the Act. The said proposition was being upheld by the Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2002) 259 ITR 651 (Madras HC) wherein the court held as under: "18. In the case of Mrs. Grace Collis (supra), the Court did not have occasion to go into the question as to whether the destruction of a capital asset which as a consequence brings about the extinguishment of the rights of the assessee-owner in such asset, would amount to transfer. The Court did not h…

DILIP MANHAR PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 21(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 6169/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6169/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Dilip Manhar Parekh, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ National Plastic, Income Tax –21(3), V. National House, Mumbai. Opp Ansa A Bldg., Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Affp4206B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad(D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 54F(3)

…Silk Mills (P) Ltd. wherein it was held that the extinguishment of right on account of destruction or loss of asset does not amount to transfer. The Tribunal subsequently considered the decisions in the case of Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. v. CIT , (2003)259 ITR 651 (Mad. HC) relied upon by the assessee and in the case of CIT v. Pradeep Kumar (2006)153 Taxman 138 [Mad. HC) relied upon by the Revenue and observed that the issue hinges around the meaning of expression "transfer" 'provided in section 2(47) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that expression "extinguishment of any right therein" was the subject ma…