S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT

133 ITR 840High Court1982#12116 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 1993 to 2021.

Judgments citing S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT - 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gbtl Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2668/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm Dcit-4(2)(2) M/S. Gbtl Ltd. Room No.640, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As M/S. Grasim Aaykar Bhawan, Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.) Vs. M.K.Road 409, Cotton Exchange Building Mumbai-400 020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aaccg9347F (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Khalsa-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivaram-AR
Section 43B

…s. He reiterated that this is capital grant and cannot be taxed. He further relied on following case laws :- • Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (249 ITR 265)(Bom HC) • CIT Vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (273 ITR1(SC) • CIT Vs. Smt. T.P. Sidhwa (133 ITR 840)(Bom HC) 7 2668/Mum/2018 17. In rejoinder learned Departmental Representative submitted that even if the particular receipt is not considered under section 56(2) the same would not take away the generality of the provisions of section 56(1), which states that income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…law, that as per the scheme of the Act all the other heads of income must be exhausted / excluded first before taxing an income under the head “Income from other sources” [Ref: S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT [83 ITR 700 (SC)], CIT v. T.P. Sidhwa [133 ITR 840 (Bombay)] & Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [39 ITR 115 (SC)]. Hence even on this count the argument of the Ld. DR is contrary to the above and therefore unsustainable. 5. So far as the issue of disallowance of interest is concerned, the same has been dealt with adequately in the propositions already filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal ea…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…law, that as per the scheme of the Act all the other heads of income must be exhausted / excluded first before taxing an income under the head “Income from other sources” [Ref: S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT [83 ITR 700 (SC)], CIT v. T.P. Sidhwa [133 ITR 840 (Bombay)] & Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [39 ITR 115 (SC)]. Hence even on this count the argument of the Ld. DR is contrary to the above and therefore unsustainable. 5. So far as the issue of disallowance of interest is concerned, the same has been dealt with adequately in the propositions already filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal ea…

Nahalchand Laloochand P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 6041/MUM/2018[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1990-91

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR
Section 22Section 250Section 269USection 27Section 56

…come from House Property" in the hands of the appellant. 6.4.23 As regards the contention of the AR that rental income is not assessable u/s 56 of the Act as income from other sources in view of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. T.P. Sidhwa (133 ITR 840) (Bom), wherein it is held that the rental income from house property cannot be assessed u/s 22 where the assessee is not the owner; nor can it be assessed under the residual head merely because the same could not be brought to tax u/s 22 as the heads are mutually exclusive, it is my view that this issue is academic now in view of my clearing fin…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Atria Hydel Power Limited, Bangalore

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

…Income-tax Act, 1922. The 8th edition of the treatise referred to above, at page 398 substituted the corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reference may also be made to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Smt. T. P. Sidhwa, (1982) 133 ITR 840 ® page 849. In a nutshell, it can be said that what is charged to tax is the total income of the assessee; the tax so charged is payable by the assessee. 7. It was clarified before us in the course of the arguments addressed on behalf of the assessee that what is referred to in section 115JB by the Words "tax payable by the assessee" is actually…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Priyal International P.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result Ground No. 4 of the Revenues appeal is dismissed

ITA 3115/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3115/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Lalit P. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 14A

…case. In determination the head of income under which a particular income falls one has to refer to the charging section under each head. If specifically covered by a charging section, the income cannot be taxed in any other head [refer CIT vs Smt T.P. Sidhwa 133 ITR 840]. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Modi vs CIT 61 ITR 428 have held that in case income seems to fall under two or more heads, one has to decide the issue based on commercial notions of a practical manner. A similar view was also taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Continental Construction Ltd vs CIT 195 ITR 81 wherein such…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Marudhar Mudra P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3166/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2007-08 Ito-4(2)(4), M/S Marudhar Mudra Pvt. Room No.647, 6Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ M.K. Road, 101-102, Chartered House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 293-297, Dr. C.H.Street, Mumbai-400020 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcm5764F

Section 73

…R 265 (Born) held that consideration for surrendering tenancy right is a capital receipt accruing on transfer of capital asset. 5.5 Similar views have been also given by various courts and such decisions may be cited as under:- " CIT vs Smt T P Sidhwa (1982) 133 ITR 840 (Boni) " CIT vs Bombay Burma Trading Corporation (1987) 161 ITR 386(5C) " CIT vs Manna Ramji & Co.(1972) 86 ITR 29(5C) 5.6 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that the LAO has wrongly charged compensation received by the appellant from cancellation of allotment rights i…

Shri Emil Webber vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, V&M, Nagpur

C.A. No.-003115-003116 - 1980Supreme Court19 Feb 1993
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, V AND M, NAGPUR
Section 14Section 17Section 195Section 2Section 56

…come tax under the head ’income from other sources’, if it is not chargeable to income tax under any of the other heads specified in Section 14, Items A to E. [32A- B] N-4. Modi v. S.A.L., Narayana Rao, 61 ITR 428 SC; C.L T., Bombay v. Smt. T.P. Sidhwa, 133 ITR 840 and Mrs. Sheela Kaushish v. C.I. T. Delhi 131 [TR 435 SC, distinguished. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3115-16 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.1978 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref. No. 458 of 1976. V.U. Eradi and Suman J. Khaitan for Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant. S. Rajappa for Ms. A…

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (133 ITR 840) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax