How many judgments cite Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

16 judgments on BharatTax cite Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (63 ITR 632), spanning 1996 to 2023.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 80A(6), Section 80IA, Section 80IA(8).

Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT

63 ITR 632Supreme Court of India1967#7114 most cited

What is Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Two businesses are considered the same if there is inter-connection, interlacing, interdependence, or unity between them, often evidenced by common management, organization, administration, fund, and place of business.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 1996 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT · 63 ITR 632 · SC · 1967 · same business · interconnected business · inter-lacing business · inter-dependence · unity of business · common management · common fund · common place of business

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IA Section 80IA(8)

Issues it is cited on

section 35dd section 35d section 35 revenue expenditure capital expenditure section 14a salary previous year india company business person

Judgments citing Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Ajay Prakash, Mumbai vs. ITO - 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3525/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Prakash V. Income Tax Officer – 24(1)(1) Nomad Travels, Turning Point Ward (1)(1) 2Nd Floor, Jp Road, Andheri (W) 7Th Floor, Room No. 702 Mumbai – 400058 Piramal Chambers Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aaipp6871G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 44A

…itted that assessee is earning various incomes by operating as tour operator and all the receipts are interconnected with the agency. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 272 (SC) to submit interconnect and inter-related business forms of the same business. 11. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 12. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee is a tour operator and earns the major income consists of commission from ticketing, in…

Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…as Baroda and Bangalore. However, the funds utilised for the management of both the concerns must be common as reflected in the balance sheet of the company." 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Prithvi Insurance Co. Limited (1967) (63 ITR 632) (SC), held as under: "A fairly adequate rest for determining whether the two constitute the same business is furnished by what Rowlett said in Scules vs. George Thompson & Co. Ltd [1927] 13 Tax Cas 83: "Was there any inter-connection any inter-lacing, any inter-dependence, any unity at all embracing those two businesses?" 9 Ameriprise India Pv…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Times Internet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3124/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3124/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Times Internet Ltd., Special Range-9, 10, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1559M

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 35D

…ITA No. 2210/Del/2018 A.Y. 2014-15: (Assessee) 13. With regard to the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), the ld. AR relied on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Monnet Industries 332 ITR 627(Del.) and CIT Vs Prithvi Insurance Company Ltd. 63 ITR 632. 14. Section 35DD of the Income Tax Act states as under: “Amortization of expenditure in case of amalgamation or demerger. 35DD (1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company, incurs any expenditure, on or after the 1st day of April, 1999, wholly and exclusively for the purposes of amalgamation or demerger of an undertaking, the assessee shall b…

Times Internet Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2210/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 35D

Eli Lilly and Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circel-1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7487/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Kumar Karan, CIT-DR

Section 32

…s is whether there is any interconnection, interlacing, interdependence unity embracing different ventures as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 41 ITR 272 (SC), CIT vs. Prithvi Insurance Company Limited 63 ITR 632 (SC) etc. 14. Per contra, Ld. DR placed reliance upon paragraph No. 4.3 of the assessment order where the assessing officer had distinguished the cases relied upon by the assessee reported in CIT vs. Wavin India Ltd., 236 ITR 314, Amway IndiaEnterprises vs. DCIT, 346 ITR 341; and Empire Jute Company Limited, 124 ITR 1 and also on paragraph No. 4.8…

M/S. Vignette India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 980/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…owing judicial precedence: " CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3) 200 ITR 341 (Delhi HC) " Standard Refinery and Distillery Ltd. v.CIT (1971) 79 ITR 589 (SC) " Satebganj Sugar Mills Ltd. V CIT (1961) 41 TR 272 (SC) " CIT v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Limited (1967) 63 ITR 632 (SC) " B.R. Limited v. Gupta (V.P.) CIT (1978) 113 ITR 647 (SC) " Hooghly Trust (Private) Limited v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 685 (SC) " Produce Exchange Corporation Limited v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 739 (SC) " Karnataka Light Metal Industries (P) Ltd. v CIT (1997) (225 ITR 947)(Karnataka HC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Srinivasa Iyer (1991) 192 ITR 50 (Ma…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…d in relation to setting up of a new unit by an existing business is allowable deduction if the new unit constitutes the same business. " Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT: 41 ITR 272 (SC) 81 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. " CIT Vs. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. : 63 ITR 632 (SC) " L.M.Chhabda & Sons Vs. CIT: 65 ITR 639 (SC) " Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT: 77 ITR 739 (SC) " B .R.Ltd. Vs. V.P.Gupta CIT Bombay: 113 ITR 647 (SC) " Veecumsees Vs. CIT 220 ITR 185 (SC) " DCIT, Baroda Vs. Gujarat Alkialier & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.: 299 ITR 85 (SC) " DCIT Vs. Core health Care Ltd. : 298 ITR 194 (SC) " CIT Vs. Modi I…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 143(3)

…control and not the nature of products dealt with by the two businesses. Law in this regard was laid down by the Supreme Court repeatedly in the following decisions: - Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT : 41 ITR 272 (SC) - CIT vs. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd.: 63 ITR 632 (SC) - Hoogly Trust (P) Ltd. v CIT 73 ITR 685 (SC) - L.M. Chhabda & Sons vs. CIT : 65 ITR 638 (SC) - Standard Refinery & Distillery Ltd. v. CIT: 79 ITR 589 (SC) - B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta: 113 ITR 647 (SC) - Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. Vfs. CIT : 77 ITR 739 (SC) In the case of the appellant, aquafresh business is only part of same line of bu…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…is relevant is unity of control and not the nature of products dealt with by the two businesses. (i) Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT: 77 ITR 739 (SC) (ii) Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT : 41 ITR 272 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd.: 63 ITR 632 (SC) (iv) Hoogly Trust (P) Ltd. v CIT 73 ITR 685 (SC) (v) L.M. Chhabda& Sons vs. CIT : 65 ITR 638 (SC) (vi) Standard Refinery & Distillery Ltd. v. CIT: 79 ITR 589 (SC) (vii) B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta: 113 ITR 647 (SC) f) It has been held that expenditure incurred in connection with expansion of business, involving setting up of new unit, which sati…

CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd

Appeal is partly allowed, to the extent it covers the first two questions;

ITA - 95 / 2011HC Delhi14 Sept 2012

…Learned counsel emphasized upon the imperative nature of the provision highlighting the non-obstante clause. 9. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that several judgments of the Supreme Court entitled CIT v. Prithvi Insurance Company Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 632; Hooghly Trust Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 685; Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 739; B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta (1978) 113 ITR 647 as well as the judgment of this Court in Monnet (supra) and CIT v. Modi Industries Limited (1993) 200 ITR 341 have held that if there is common management, common business organization…

CIT vs. Sony India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1178 / 2011HC Delhi10 Sept 2012

Section 10Section 35D

…$~S-1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 1178/2011 & 1182/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. versus SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR O R D E R % 10.09.2012 C.M.No.8667/2012 in ITA 1178/2011 C.M.No.8669/2…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Monnet Power Ltd

ITA - 1940 / 2010HC Delhi19 Sept 2011

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43(1)

…and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character, the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure." 12 In <u>CIT Vs. Prithvi Insurance Co.Ltd.</u> (1967) 63 ITR 632 (SC); Page 5 of 8 ![](_page_5_Picture_1.jpeg) it was observed that in determining whether the two or more lines of the businesses may be regarded as 'the same business' or 'different business'; what has to be looked at is the nature of the business, the nature of their organization, management, source of capital fund utilized, method of book-ke…

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…y between the transactions of the assessee company relating to the shares as well as its other business and therefore the two activities cannot be considered as "the same business". He contended that this Court in Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd's case [1967] 63 ITR 632 (SC) has accepted the correctness of the decision of the King's Bench in Scales v. George Thompson, Co., Ltd. 13 T c 83 and in that case Rowlatt J. had held that before two or more businesses can be considered as 'the same business' they should not be easily separable and there must be a dovetailing of the one with the other. According to M…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Monnet Industries Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/450/2008HC Delhi21 Nov 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Respondent: Mr R.D. Jolly

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the different transactions, the possibility of one being closed without affecting the texture of other. 5.6 This test was further refined by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Prithvi Insurance Co Ltd: (1967) 63 ITR 632. In this case, while holding that life insurance business and general insurance business were the “same business”, it observed that in determining whether two or more lines of businesses may be regarded as “same business” or “different business”, what has to be looked at is, the nature of businesses, the nature of their organization, manageme…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Monnet Industries Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 450 / 2008HC Delhi21 Nov 2008

For Respondent: Mr R.D. Jolly

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260A

M/S. Veecumsees, Madras vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-007660-007662 - 1996Supreme Court26 Apr 1996

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ot conveniently be carried on after the closure of the other may furnish a strong indication that the tow businesses constitute the same business. But the decision of this Court in Prithvi Insurance Co. (1967)63 ITR 632 (SC) shows that no decisive inference can be drawn form the fact that after the closure of one business, another may or may not conveniently be carried on....Thus, the unity of control and the other circumstances adverted to above show that there was dovetailing of interlacing…