Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT

115 ITR 777Supreme Court of India1978#15102 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…loss of other units. 16.The learned counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the decision in the case of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. (supra) and [the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajapalayam I Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [(1978) 115 ITR 777 (SC)J, wherein the issue was that loss of unit entitled to deduction under Chapter VI-A, which has been set I jff against such income in the respective year, cannot be notionally carried I forward. Thus, in the light of the elaborate submissions made before us an also noting that the Tribunal did not assign any reason as to why it was satisfied t…

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…not collection of different taxes which are to be levied on different sources / heads of income. (x) The ld AR placed in support of aforesaid contentions, relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajapalayam Mills Ltd vs CIT reported in 115 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- It is settled law that though the profits of each distinct business carried on by an assessee have to be computed separately in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of 1922 Act the tax is chargeable under that section not separately on the profits of each business, but on the aggregate of the profits of…

M/S. HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2301/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…sidered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Suresh Industries Pvt Ltd ITA No. 5374/Mum/2011 wherein the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines Pvt Ltd 59 ITR 555, Rajapalayam Mills 115 ITR 777 and Virmani Industries Pvt Ltd 216 ITR 607. 12. The ld. AR further pointed out that similar view was taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd 4 ITR [T] 210. The ld. AR further pointed out that the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal has followed the order of the Mumbai Bench. The ld. AR further drew our attention…

STAINLESS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1384/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(3), (Now Known As Stainless Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ India Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. 226, 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacs7067A

Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71(2)

…ins are specifically confined to profits and gains of business only. The Ld. CIT(A) also distinguished the facts of the assessee's case with those of (a) CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555(SC) (b) Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 777(SC) and (c) CIT v. Virmani Indus. (P.) Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 607/ 83 Taxman 343(SC). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the current years' depreciation is not allowed to be set off against the income under the head Long Term capital gains. Further the claim of the assessee for allowing the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier year's was also not allowed for th…

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3078/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ase of CIT vs. MEWAR Oil and General Mills Ltd.(186 CTR 141) (copy enclosed-Annex. 1) 2. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. (115 ITR 640) ITA 3078/Mum/2009 6 3. Supreme Court in the case of Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (115 ITR 777).” The assessee company submitted that the treatment of the undertaking as the only business of the assessee company is from the initial assessment year , would be the assessment year specified by the assessee company at its option. Thereafter, again the assessee company was show caused by the AO as to why the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act shou…

SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5045/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71

…2009, the assessee company filed first appeal with the CIT(A) . The assessee company relied upon the following case laws in support of its contentions: 1. CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines Private Limited-59 ITR 555(SC), 2. Rajapalayam Mills Limited v. CIT -115 ITR 777(SC), 3. Garden Silk Wvg Factory-189 ITR 512(SC), 4. CIT v. Virmani Inds. P. Ltd. & Ors.-216 ITR 607(SC), ITA 5045/M/10 6 5. Rallies India Limited in ITA No. 4898/M/2006. In the light of the above decisions , the assessee company argued that the assessee company has set off the depreciation allowance for the year under consideration computed as…