Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.

4 SCC 679Reported decision1984#24833 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,232 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.

Pro Commissioner of Income Tax (Central - 2) vs. Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd

ITA/264/2018HC Delhi28 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34

…468, Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros.,AIR 1959 SC 1362, Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 588, Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth v. Chintamanrao Balaji, AIR 1965 SC 214 and Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. (1984) 4 SCC 679: AIR 1985 SC 1156)” 45. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5 SCC 306, the Court held: (SCC pp. 320-21, paras 43-45) “43. In any case, assuming that Clause 9.3 was capable of two interpretations, the view taken by the arbitrator was clearly a possible if not a plausible one. It is not possible to say that the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi vs. Dhara Vegetable Oil & Foods Co. Ltd.(Now Merged With Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Ltd.)

ITA/71/2018HC Delhi23 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34

…468, Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros.,AIR 1959 SC 1362, Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 588, Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth v. Chintamanrao Balaji, AIR 1965 SC 214 and Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. (1984) 4 SCC 679: AIR 1985 SC 1156)” 45. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5 SCC 306, the Court held: (SCC pp. 320-21, paras 43-45) “43. In any case, assuming that Clause 9.3 was capable of two interpretations, the view taken by the arbitrator was clearly a possible if not a plausible one. It is not possible to say that the ar…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. London Star Diamond Co. India P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1359/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1359/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Deputy Commissioner Of London Star Diamond बनाम/ Income Tax 5(2) Company (India) Private V. Room No. 571, Aayakar Limited Bhawan, M K Road, Mumbai- 1610/1611 , 400 020 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl0576B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

…lation business. He also explained the meaning of the expression "in respect of" in connection with export contracts of the assessee and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. [1984] 4 SCC 679 dated 16 August, 1984 and judgment in the case reported in AIR 1997 SC 1302 (sic) assuming that these are not covered by the said clause (a) of the proviso to section 43(5) of the Act. 11. Referring to the Explanation 2 to section 28 of the Act: In this regard, Ld Counsel mentioned that for constituting the speculation transaction as a speculation…

Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. (4 SCC 679) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax