Tax LR 90, Nawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT

168 ITR 811Reported decision1987#19537 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Tax LR 90, Nawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he right to claim depreciation under section 32. In view of the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 97, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sahney Steel & Press Works (P.) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 811 and that of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. [1991] 91 CTR (Mad.) 32 it was to be held in the instant case that as the assessee was exercising right of ownership in its own right as owner of the flats in question, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciatio…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.RITURAJ TEXTILE & GENERAL

ITA/9/2004HC Delhi29 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case [1986] 162 ITR 888, the judgments of our High Court in CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan [1974] Tax LR 90, Nawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 541 and CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works (P.) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 811, will not be of much assistance much less will they be binding authorities on the interpretation of the expression “belonging to” in section 2(m) of the Act for the term considered in those income-tax cases was “owner” within the meaning of section 9 of the 1922 Indian Income-tax Act (section 22 of the 1961 Income-tax Act)." 30.2 The Full…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARJEEV AGGARWAL

ITA/8/2004HC Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case [1986] 162 ITR 888, the judgments of our High Court in CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan [1974] Tax LR 90, Nawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 541 and CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works (P.) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 811, will not be of much assistance much less will they be binding authorities on the interpretation of the expression “belonging to” in section 2(m) of the Act for the term considered in those income-tax cases was “owner” within the meaning of section 9 of the 1922 Indian Income-tax Act (section 22 of the 1961 Income-tax Act)." 30.2 The Full…

RAJ DULARI BHASIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/11/2004HC Delhi21 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan’s case [1986] 162 ITR 888, the judgments of our High Court in CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan [1974] Tax LR 90, Nawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 541 and CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works (P.) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 811, will not be of much assistance much less will they be binding authorities on the interpretation of the expression “belonging to” in section 2(m) of the Act for the term considered in those income-tax cases was “owner” within the meaning of section 9 of the 1922 Indian Income-tax Act (section 22 of the 1961 Income-tax Act)." 30.2 The Full…

Tax LR 90, Nawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT (168 ITR 811) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax