Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC)

96 ITR 463Reported decision1974#21674 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 80e section 75 section 32(2)convertible foreign exchange section 80ab section 32a section 80m section 80h domestic company section 80c section 80hhc deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC)

Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisioner Incomer Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

…aswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306 CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 8. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 Page 20 of 39 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 115. We have carefully considered…

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

…aswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306 8. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 9. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 115. We have carefully considered the submissions…

M/S. Tata Elxsi Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

…ami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306 7. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 8. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 Page 18 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023…

M/s Lavish Apartment (P.) Ltd

ITA/254/2006HC Delhi23 Jul 2012

Section 72(1)

…ess for the latter which undoubtedly is a business activity though it may be a single instance only. 24. We may refer to only two more judgments as they are judgments of this Court. The first is of a Division Bench in the case of CIT v. R. Dalmia, (1974) 96 ITR 463. There the brought forward business loss was sought to be set off against the dividend income earned by the assessee in the subsequent year. It was held by the High Court that since the dividend income was derived from the shares held as stock-in-trade, the brought forward losses could be set off against the same notwithstanding that the Act…