Petrosil Oil Company Limited v. CIT

236 ITR 220High Court1999#23842 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 19 of Companies Act Section 2(1B)Section 28(iv)Section 47(vi)Section 56(2)(x)

Judgments citing Petrosil Oil Company Limited v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT

Section 19Section 41(1)

…. vs. ITO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 62 (Kolkata-Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT has followed the principle laid down by the Jurisdictional Bombay HC in the case of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay HC in the case of Petrosil Oil Company Limited vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 220 (Bom.). 21. Thereafter, your attention is also drawn to the provisions of section 47 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) which provides for certain "transactions not regarded as transfer." Clause (vi) of Section 47 provides as follows: "(vi) any transfer, in a scheme of amalgamation, of a capital asset by the amalgamating company to the Sama…

DCIT Central Circle 16 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Comptech Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1773/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…2013. The AO has not given any reason to hold that a subsidiary of a subsidiary would not be regarded as a deemed public company. 6.4 In this respect a reference can be made to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Petrosil Oil Co. Ltd. v. CIT (236 ITR 220) wherein the assessee-company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in India was a wholly owned subsidiary of a company Incorporated in United Kingdom (UK company) which itself was also a subsidiary of another company based and registered in United States of America holding its 100 percent share (US Company). The Bombay High Court held thatt…

Emami Indrastructure Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 880/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Counsel, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ubsidiary of the assessee. The issue is whether the provisions of section 45(iv)(a)(b) is applicable to a second step down subsidiary. They are divergent views on this issue. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Petrosil Oil Co.Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 236 ITR 220 (Bom.) held as under:- “In this case, the Income-tax Act nowhere defines what is a "subsidiary company". The Finance (No. 2) Act also does not define what is a "subsidiary company". There would be a dichotomy if the assessee-company were to be a subsidiary company of the U.S. company for the purposes of the Companies Act, but were deemed not to…