Somasundraram & Bros. v. CIT

282 ITR 389High Court2006#10481 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2022.

Judgments citing Somasundraram & Bros. v. CIT

SUKANTA SAMANTRAY vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2009HC Orissa07 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 28Section 37Section 56Section 80H

…llate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 8 ITR 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006]282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 8 ITR 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business income, then deduction should be permissible, in terms of Explanatio…

M/S RAMESHTHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, , JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

…me-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business income, then deduction should be permissible, in terms of Explanation (baa) o…

M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…in view of the decision in ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The assessee’s alternate claim, dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) with reference to the decision in CIT v. V.Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 (Mad), is misconceived. This is as, even as noted by the tribunal in the assessee’s case for A.Y 2003-04 (in ITA No.1823/Mds/2006), the question of reduction of interest in computation of the profits of the business under Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC would arise only where the same is assessable as business income, while the Revenue insists that…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 721/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…e in its appeal in I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/2014 is dismissed. 6. While computing the deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act, by following the decision in the case of K. Somasundraram & Bros. v. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and in the case of V. Chinnapandi v. CIT in 282 ITR 389 (Mad), the gross interest income received by the assessee of ₹.13,43,426/- from SEZ unit and ₹.20,33,769/- from the EOU are taken to the head 8 I.T.A. Nos.214, 2911 & 721/M/14 “income from other sources” and the Assessing Officer has denied deduction under section 10B of the Act on such receipts. 6.1 The assessee carried the matter in appeal b…

ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…e in its appeal in I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/2014 is dismissed. 6. While computing the deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act, by following the decision in the case of K. Somasundraram & Bros. v. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and in the case of V. Chinnapandi v. CIT in 282 ITR 389 (Mad), the gross interest income received by the assessee of ₹.13,43,426/- from SEZ unit and ₹.20,33,769/- from the EOU are taken to the head 8 I.T.A. Nos.214, 2911 & 721/M/14 “income from other sources” and the Assessing Officer has denied deduction under section 10B of the Act on such receipts. 6.1 The assessee carried the matter in appeal b…

M/S. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 214/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…e in its appeal in I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/2014 is dismissed. 6. While computing the deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act, by following the decision in the case of K. Somasundraram & Bros. v. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and in the case of V. Chinnapandi v. CIT in 282 ITR 389 (Mad), the gross interest income received by the assessee of ₹.13,43,426/- from SEZ unit and ₹.20,33,769/- from the EOU are taken to the head 8 I.T.A. Nos.214, 2911 & 721/M/14 “income from other sources” and the Assessing Officer has denied deduction under section 10B of the Act on such receipts. 6.1 The assessee carried the matter in appeal b…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-V vs. NECTAR LIFE SCIENCE LTD.

ITA/125/2009HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 80H

…ppellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business income, then deduction should be permissible, in terms of Explana…

CIT vs. NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/1543/2010HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…ppellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business income, then deduction should be permissible, in terms of Explana…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XI vs. M/S SHAHI EXPORT HOUSE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2009HC Delhi06 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 28Section 37Section 56Section 80H

…llate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 8 ITR 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006]282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 8 ITR 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business income, then deduction should be permissible, in terms of Explanatio…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V N vs. DAMANJIT SINGH

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER Date of Reserve : November 29, 2006 Date of decision : January 12, 2007 ITA 166/2000 with ITA.Nos. 29/2004, 39/2004, 56/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Vishnu Sharma, Advocate. versus SHRI RAM HONDA POWER EQUIP ..... Respondent Through Mr. Saubhagya Aggarwal with Mr. A.K. Dash, Advs. ITA 78/2002 COMMR.OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant…

Somasundraram & Bros. v. CIT (282 ITR 389) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax