Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta

4 SCC 358Reported decision1978#9988 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. AAMBY VALLEY LTD.

ITA/849/2019HC Delhi19 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 115JSection 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 47Section 56(2)(viia)

…1 ITAT itself records that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year and even investments were made in its subsidiary for commercial expediency for which no borrowings were specifically 2 (2002) 9 SCC 1 3 Act 4 (1978) 4 SCC 358 5 SCN This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 00:21:58 ITA 849/2019 Page 5 of 8 undertaken. Therefore, the question of disallowing any expenditure woul…

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

C.A. No.-002664-002664 - 2011Supreme Court21 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Section 80

…eign exchange credited to the EEFC account is a direct revenue from the export of garments. ii. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is used for the business purposes of the assessee. 1 (1978) 4 SCC 358. 2 (2009) 13 SCC 1. 3 (2013) SCC OnLine Kar 10731. 8 iii. The exchange fluctuation is incidentally attributable to the business of the assessee, and necessarily, the deduction under Section 80 HHC is available. iv. The computation of business income is correctly carried out by the assessee by applying Clause (baa) of Section 80 HHC…

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…expenditure in the year in which it was spent/paid by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Once a return in that manner was filed, the AO was bound to carry out the assessment by applying the 3 (1972) 3 SCC 252 4 (1997) 6 SCC 117 5 (1978) 4 SCC 358 6 (1999) 8 SCC 338 Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and provisions of that Act and not to go beyond the said return. There is no estoppel against the 12 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd Statute and the Act enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is claimed. 21) In view of the aforesaid disc…

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/245/2018HC Karnataka24 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40a

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL I.T.A. NO.245 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD., A LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.1 BIDADI IND. AREA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562109 REP. HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADV.,) AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085.…

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHINANO RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

…provisions contained in the Act [See Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 6 SCC 117, Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 155 : (1978) 4 SCC 358 and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380 : (1999) 8 SCC338]." 4.7 Thus, the settled position is that the income has to be computed as per the Income Tax Law and the entries passed in the books of account have no final role to play for computing the taxable income. Therefore, the entry passed for Rs. 190 Crore being profit on sale…

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…utta, (1972) 3 SCC M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucia…

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…utta, (1972) 3 SCC M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucia…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.761 & 762/DEL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-10(1), v. M/s. GE Capital Services New Delhi. India Pvt. Ltd., AIFACS Building 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACG 0239L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv. Date of hearing: 15 03 2018 Date of pronouncement: 11 06 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.761 & 762/DEL/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-10(1), v. M/s. GE Capital Services New Delhi. India Pvt. Ltd., AIFACS Building 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACG 0239L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv. Date of hearing: 15 03 2018 Date of pronouncement: 11 06 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the…

RAJAT MAKAN,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 958/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 143Section 40

…Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta [1972] 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1997] 6 SCC 117; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta [1978] 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta [1999] 8 SCC 338”. This principle is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10 10. As far as principle relating to applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the act is concerned, the following erudite observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of…

ASK PROPERTY INVESTMENT ADVISORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1810/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA No.1810/Mum/2017 & 1635/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13& 2010-11) M/s. Ask Property Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Investment Advisors Private Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Limited Mumbai Biral Aurora, 16 Level, Office Floor 9 Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai – 400030 PAN/GIR No. AAHCA5652N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue by Ms. Samatha Mullamudi Date of Hearing 26/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals…