Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (SC) (

141 ITR 681High Court1983#11098 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2019.

Judgments citing Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (SC) (

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

ITA 2561/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…ppellant: Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14  Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. CIT (SC) (270 ITR 1) • CIT vs. Netar Krishna Sahgals Pr. Ltd (Delhi) (141 ITR 681) • Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay) (106 ITR 758) • CIT vs Late Rajesh Pilot (Delhi) (219 CTR 403) b. The amounts received by the appellant from YRIPL, its franchisee‘s and other concerns, is for the predefined purpose of incurring them on AMP activities. In view of the obligation that has been imposed under the facts and circumstanc…

Yum Restaurants Marketing Pvt Ltd vs. ITO Ward 18 (4)

ITA 938/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…ppellant: Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14  Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. CIT (SC) (270 ITR 1) • CIT vs. Netar Krishna Sahgals Pr. Ltd (Delhi) (141 ITR 681) • Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay) (106 ITR 758) • CIT vs Late Rajesh Pilot (Delhi) (219 CTR 403) b. The amounts received by the appellant from YRIPL, its franchisee‘s and other concerns, is for the predefined purpose of incurring them on AMP activities. In view of the obligation that has been imposed under the facts and circumstanc…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5895/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…ppellant: Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14  Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. CIT (SC) (270 ITR 1) • CIT vs. Netar Krishna Sahgals Pr. Ltd (Delhi) (141 ITR 681) • Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay) (106 ITR 758) • CIT vs Late Rajesh Pilot (Delhi) (219 CTR 403) b. The amounts received by the appellant from YRIPL, its franchisee‘s and other concerns, is for the predefined purpose of incurring them on AMP activities. In view of the obligation that has been imposed under the facts and circumstanc…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5894/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…ppellant: Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14  Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. CIT (SC) (270 ITR 1) • CIT vs. Netar Krishna Sahgals Pr. Ltd (Delhi) (141 ITR 681) • Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay) (106 ITR 758) • CIT vs Late Rajesh Pilot (Delhi) (219 CTR 403) b. The amounts received by the appellant from YRIPL, its franchisee‘s and other concerns, is for the predefined purpose of incurring them on AMP activities. In view of the obligation that has been imposed under the facts and circumstanc…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Yum Restaurant Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 5735/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…ppellant: Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14  Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. CIT (SC) (270 ITR 1) • CIT vs. Netar Krishna Sahgals Pr. Ltd (Delhi) (141 ITR 681) • Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay) (106 ITR 758) • CIT vs Late Rajesh Pilot (Delhi) (219 CTR 403) b. The amounts received by the appellant from YRIPL, its franchisee‘s and other concerns, is for the predefined purpose of incurring them on AMP activities. In view of the obligation that has been imposed under the facts and circumstanc…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4079/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…ppellant: Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14  Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs. CIT (SC) (270 ITR 1) • CIT vs. Netar Krishna Sahgals Pr. Ltd (Delhi) (141 ITR 681) • Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay) (106 ITR 758) • CIT vs Late Rajesh Pilot (Delhi) (219 CTR 403) b. The amounts received by the appellant from YRIPL, its franchisee‘s and other concerns, is for the predefined purpose of incurring them on AMP activities. In view of the obligation that has been imposed under the facts and circumstanc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…sistently followed and accepted in assessments in the past. The assessee has never apportioned this money to its income in the past. He further supported his arguments by relying on following decisions :- a. ACIT vs. Shri Netar Krishna Sehgal Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 681 Delhi, wherein it has been held that all receipts are not income. b. CIT vs. Madurai Soap Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 146 Taxman 572 (Mad) wherein it has been held that the security deposit is not a trading receipt. c. CIT vs. Goyal Gases Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 216 (Del) wherein it has been held that security deposit received does not belong to ass…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…sistently followed and accepted in assessments in the past. The assessee has never apportioned this money to its income in the past. He further supported his arguments by relying on following decisions :- a. ACIT vs. Shri Netar Krishna Sehgal Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 681 Delhi, wherein it has been held that all receipts are not income. b. CIT vs. Madurai Soap Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 146 Taxman 572 (Mad) wherein it has been held that the security deposit is not a trading receipt. c. CIT vs. Goyal Gases Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 216 (Del) wherein it has been held that security deposit received does not belong to ass…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT Andhra Pradesh (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC), Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) and of this Court in ACIT v. Netar Krishana Sehgal (1983) 141 ITR 681 (Del). 6.3 Reliance is next placed by the Department on the judgments of the High Courts interpreting Section 80HHC itself. These include that of the Madras High Court in K.S.Subbiah Pillai v. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 304 (Mad), the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal v. CIT (2004) 268 ITR 220 (P& H), and the decisions of the Kera…