New Jahangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT(SC)

265 ITR 114High Court2004#24100 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing New Jahangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT(SC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kitex Garments Ltd., Kizhakkambalam

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITA/49/2009HC Kerala15 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 115JSection 260ASection 80Section 80ASection 80H

…AB while computing book profit under Section 115JB, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80 HHC for an amount of Rs.65,20,772/-? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of reasoning contained in 265 ITR 114 (Bom) the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation at 40% on commercial vehicles used for assessee's own business?” 4. The first substantial question of law raised in the appeal relates to eligibility of profits and deductibility of profits I.T.A. No.49/2009 -4- arising under Section 115JB of the Act; whether the assessee is entitled to cla…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-6(1)(2), M/S Aristo Reality R. No. 508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Development Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 601, Symphony Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacl0593J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Aarju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Lakhani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia, DR

Section 143

…tion was an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. In the Income Tax Act, each year is a self-contained separate period. In CIT v. Sanjeev Woollen Mills (2003) 264 ITR 68, 75 (Bom), Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 265 ITR 114, 119 (Bom.), it has been held that under the income-tax law, each year constitutes a separate unit. It is a settled law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO’s decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jeha…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Gupta Khandsari Works, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1990/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. S.C. Bansal, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…is placed on the following:- i. CIT Vs Syed Saddique Imam and Others (Patna) 111 ITR 475. ii. Tamilnadu Chlorates Vs JCIT (ITAT, Chennai) 98 ITD 1. iii. New Jahangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 49 ITR 137. iv. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT(Bom) 265 ITR 114. v. K. Bhaskaran Nair Vs CIT (Kerla) 177 Taxman 478. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of Gur, Rab, Khandsari and Gur-raskat from crushing of sugarcane. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.48,819/-. In response to notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the ass…