Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd. v. ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (

174 ITR 58High Court#15097 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd. v. ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (

Oceanic Marketing Agencies India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as

ITA 4777/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…hasoami Satsang vs. CIT/1991/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. Sardar Kehar Singh CIT/1991/195 ITR 769 (Raj.) 3. CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000/245 ITR 492 (Delhi) 4. CIT vs. Belpahar Refractrorles Ltd., [1981/128/ITR 610(Ori) 5. M.A. Namazie Endowment vs. CIT / 1988/174 ITR 58 (Mad) 6. CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd./1994/213 ITR 361 (Bom) (FB) 7. Turaben Ramanbhal Patel & Anr. Vs. ITO [1995] 215 ITR 323 (Guj) 8. Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT/1996/217 ITR 4 (Gau) In the context of the dispute whether the share transactions resulted in trading profit or capital gains, the rule of consistency has been applied in the fo…

M/S. Oceanic Marketing Agencies India Ltd., Delhi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…hasoami Satsang vs. CIT/1991/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. Sardar Kehar Singh CIT/1991/195 ITR 769 (Raj.) 3. CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000/245 ITR 492 (Delhi) 4. CIT vs. Belpahar Refractrorles Ltd., [1981/128/ITR 610(Ori) 5. M.A. Namazie Endowment vs. CIT / 1988/174 ITR 58 (Mad) 6. CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd./1994/213 ITR 361 (Bom) (FB) 7. Turaben Ramanbhal Patel & Anr. Vs. ITO [1995] 215 ITR 323 (Guj) 8. Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT/1996/217 ITR 4 (Gau) In the context of the dispute whether the share transactions resulted in trading profit or capital gains, the rule of consistency has been applied in the f…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd, Rajam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ecurities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of assessee company should be allowed as dedu…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited, Rajam vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ecurities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of assessee company should be allowed as dedu…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rajam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ecurities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of assessee company should be allowed as dedu…

The DCIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ecurities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of assessee company should be allowed as dedu…

Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd. v. ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari ( (174 ITR 58) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax