Parry & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

171 ITR 359High Court1988#23075 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 10ASection 10BSection 11Section 115JASection 115JBSection 12

Judgments citing Parry & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

…guments in writing which are as under: “In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to addition u/s 28(ii) of I.T Act: 1. Matheson Bosanquet Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [1988] 37 Taxman 234 (Madras)/[1988] 171 ITR 359 (Madras)/[1988] 68 CTR 129 (Madras) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that where 25 Modi Entertainment Ltd. agency was terminated and certain sum was paid by way of compensation to assessee, compensation amount was taxable in view of provisions of section 28(ii)(e). 2. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT [2008] 115 ITD…

Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 183 / 2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…eceipt and not as a capital receipt, as claimed by the appellant. In this regard, Ms. Bansal relied upon a number of decisions including the following: - “(i) Parry & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 269 ITR 177 (Mad.) (ii) Matheson Bosanquet Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 171 ITR 359 (Mad.) (iii) Bishamber Nath Swaroop Narain vs. CIT, 119 ITR 681 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. R.B. Jairam Valji, 35 ITR 48 (SC). 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008 Page 12 of 31 (v) Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., 81 ITR 777 (Bom.) & (vi) K…

(M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I)

ITA/183/2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…eceipt and not as a capital receipt, as claimed by the appellant. In this regard, Ms. Bansal relied upon a number of decisions including the following: - “(i) Parry & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 269 ITR 177 (Mad.) (ii) Matheson Bosanquet Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 171 ITR 359 (Mad.) (iii) Bishamber Nath Swaroop Narain vs. CIT, 119 ITR 681 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. R.B. Jairam Valji, 35 ITR 48 (SC). 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008 Page 12 of 31 (v) Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., 81 ITR 777 (Bom.) & (vi) K…