Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979

Fortune Steel Industries , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

In the case of Traders & Traders vs. CIT (236 ITR 269), the creditors had denied the cash credits and no convincing explanation had been given by the assessee and therefore the cash credits were treated as unexplained. The case of the assessee is not a case of cash credit per se. It is a case of trading purchases and sales corresponding to these purchases had been declared by the assessee. Therefore, the purchases could not be said to be bogus. At the most, it could be considered as a case where the purchase prices are not verifiable as the parties were not found and in such cases the books could be rejected and gross profit rate could be estimated. But, the gross profit has to be estimated based on some material. In this case, the assessee has shown a gross profit rate of 16.13% on turnover of Rs.28.38 crores compared to gross profit rate of 10.81% on turnover of Rs.26.44 crores in the immediate preceding year. The gross profit rate being more and there being no other comparable cases placed on record by the Revenue, no addition could be made on account of purchase prices being not verifiable. Moreover, in this case, the CIT(A) has given a finding that the AO had made verification of purchase prices with respect to other parties and no adverse material had been placed on record. Nothing has been produced before us by the department to controvert these findings. On the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no addition can be made on account of disallowance of purchases. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit 32(1), Mumbai vs Index, Mumbai on 11 May, 2018

4. We have heard the learned Senior Departmental Representative and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the payment of commission is not in doubt. The only issue for disallowing is that the assessee has not deduct TDS under section 195 of the Act in respect of commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders from overseas buyers. It is not disputed that the payment payments have been made to overseas non-resident agents and overseas buyers. Admittedly, these non-resident agents are not assessed to tax in India because no payment is made in India. Accordingly, the assessee is not deducted tax at source because the sum paid is not chargeable to tax in India in term of section 195 of the Act. Accordingly following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd. (supra), we confirm the order of CIT(A) by deleting the disallowance. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Clifford Change , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 May, 2013

Having held that the assessee had a PE in India and also a business connection in India, the A.O. was of the opinion that the profit earned by the assessee from the rendering of services in India was in the nature of business profit covered under Article 7 of the India-UK DTAA. Reliance in this regard was placed by him on the definition of the term "business profits" given in the Indian Income Tax Act having wide import. He noted that the assessee in the present case was not only engaged in giving legal advice while sitting at the desk in the solicitors' office in UK but it was also engaged inter alia in identifying licenses and consents required including assistance in obtaining grant of the same, negotiating loan and security documentation and reviewing and advising on any information memorandum required for the project. He held that the assessee thus 5 SPECIAL BENCH,CLIFFORD CHANCE had entered into the field of business activities in the true commercial sense and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Vadamalyam vs. CIT (74 ITR 94) and that of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of GVK Industries vs. ITO (228 ITR 564), he held that Article 7 of India-UK DTAA was applicable in the case of the assessee which was engaged in business activity in India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs Haldyn Glass Ltd, Mumbai on 11 October, 2017

In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co: (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR. 50 (BOM) wherein the facts were that at the 9 ITA.No.2043/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Haldyan Glass Ltd., material time the assessee-company was dealing in shares and securities, was acting as an agent for a textile company and an insurance company and had a business in 'cotton yarn; (ii) 25 per cent of its share capital was held by P; (iii) The remaining 75 per cent of the share capital was held by a trust of which P was the sole beneficiary; (iv) A joined the company in 1925, became a director in 1931 and held one share as the nominee Of P; (v) P and A were the only two directors of the company; (vi) P resided out of India at all material times; (vii) Under a general power of attorney dated the 1st of Feb., 1929, executed by the company in favour of A the latter was authorised to manage the company's business, to deposit in the bank moneys which would come to his hands as an agent of the company, to withdraw the amounts standing to the credit of the company in its bank account and to invest the same in the name and for the benefit of the company; (viii) A was in sole charge of the business from 1929 to 1943; (ix)He withdrew a sum of Rs. 27-1/2 lakhs from the company's account with the Bank of India between 15th March and 1st of Dec., 1943, and utilised that amount for his private ends; (x) He was adjudicated insolvent on 20th Feb, 1951, and (xi) A sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from out of the amount embezzled by him was legitimately written off by the company at the close of the accounting year corresponding to the asst. yr. 1958-59.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs Rkw Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai on 19 December, 2017

The Supreme Court observed in Cloth Traders (P) Ltd.'s case (supra )that the whole of the income by way of dividends from a domestic company or 60 per cent of such income, as the case may be, would be deductible from the gross total income for arriving at the total income of the assessee. We are afraid this observation appears to have been made under some misapprehension, because what sub-section (1) of section 80M requires is that the deduction of the whole or a specified percentage must be made from 'such income by way of dividends' and not from the gross total income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Yashodhan Industrial Investment Co. ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 February, 2001

(P) Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 899 (SC). She also submitted that an admission made in the assessee's own record as to the nature of a particular asset is also a very relevant fact in deciding the correctness of the assessee's claim and it is permissible for the IT authorities and the Tribunal to place reliance on the assessee's own record to show that the shares were held only as investment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next