(Refer Annexure 8) Navnitlal C Jhaveri v. Commissioner of Income Tax

80 ITR 582High Court1971#21414 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing (Refer Annexure 8) Navnitlal C Jhaveri v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Xl Enterprises Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2105/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

…that the accumulated profit means the profit as accumulated as per Companies Act and as adjusted by the amount of depreciation as per the Act. The Ld. A.R., in defense of arguments, relied on the following decisions: i) Navnitlal C. Jhaveri vs. CIT in [1971] 80 ITR 582 (Bom) ii) CIT vs. Jamnadas Khimji in [1973] 92 ITR 105 (Bom) iii) ACIT vs. Yasin Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1888/Mad/2007 for AY 2004-05 / [2009] 121 TTJ 713 (Chennai) iv) CIT vs. Pushparthy Packs P Ltd. [2014] 221 TAXMAN 403 (Bom) The Ld. A.R submitted that in all the above decisions it has been held that the accumulated profit has been asce…

A.C.I.T.-4(1), Agra vs. M/S Roger Industries Ltd., Agra

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…profits depreciation at the rate mentioned in the IT Act, 1961 shall be taken into account and not depreciation as provided in the books. The view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. CIT reported at (1971) 80 ITR 582. The accumulated profits as on 16.09.2008 were Rs.21,24,721/-. Therefore, even if the advances received from the sister concern are treated as deemed dividend the same can only be to the extent of accumulated profits i.e., Rs.21,24,721/-. The AO having not made any comment in this regard in the remand report, he appeared to have agreed with the as…

Girish Appa Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1637/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 32

…subject to adjustment and the depreciation as granted in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Income Tax Act would have to be deducted for ascertaining the accumulated profits" (Refer Annexure 8) Navnitlal C Jhaveri v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 80 ITR 582 (Bom) also states that depreciation as per IT rules shall be considered for the purpose of arriving at accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) (Refer Annexure 9) In Paragraph 8 of the order the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals enunciates that it is profit in commercial sense and not the assessable or taxable profits that…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Vasanji A Mamania, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objection filed by the assesee become otiose

ITA 6171/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.6171/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम/ The Acit-19(3), Vasanji A Mamania, Mumbai 301, Mangal Swagat, Vs. Of Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 C.O. No. 134/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No.6171/Mum/2012) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम/ Vasanji A Mamania, The Acit-19(3), 301, Mangal Swagat, Mumbai Vs. Of Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aampm 4503C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri Shridhar E ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :23.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assesee Are Directed Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 30, Mumbai Dated 6.7.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 Ita. No. 6171/M/12 & C.O No. 134/M/14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shridhar E

Section 2(22)(e)

…A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would suggest that it was altogether on different set of facts and is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 8.4. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Navnitlal C. Jhaveri 80 ITR 582 had the occasion to consider the following facts: 6 ITA. No. 6171/M/12 & C.O No. 134/M/14 “After the enactment of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, for the purpose of making certain calculations under the Electricity Supply Act the Malegaon Electricity Company was allowed depreciation on its capital assets at a certain rate which was lower than…