Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Motor And General Sales (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 July, 1996

Citi Financial Consumer Finance (I) ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 March, 2010

"6. On considering the submissions of both the parties, perusing the orders of the tax authorities below, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer while disallowing the claim of the assessee has wrongly placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Motor General Sales P. Ltd. (supra) and the same has been rightly analysed and distinguished by the CIT(A) in his order. We further find that the CIT(A) in his well reasoned order and relying upon the various decisions which were relevant to the issue under consideration before us has rightly deleted the impugned additions of ``1,56,04,644/- (in assessment year 2003-04) and ``2,00,14,497/- (in assessment year 2004-05) respectively. Accordingly, the well reasoned and well discussed orders of CIT(A) do not call for any interference from our side and the 31 ITA nos.3144&3145,5514 &5191,2687&2688/Del./2010 same are upheld. Ground Nos.1 and 2 of the appeals of the revenue are rejected."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 64 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 22 February, 2011

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that any expenditure, not being expenditure of capital nature, laid out wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business is 6 ITA No.2067/Del/2011 CO No.172/Del/2011 allowable as deduction in computation of the income chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession." The expenditure which is not related to the business is not allowable as deduction. The assessment of M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2005-06 was completed after summary manner in 2006 determining an income of Rs.40920360/-. Audit scrutiny revealed that the assessee had debited Rs.6538841 to the profit and loss account (in schedule 17) on account of "Loss on sale of Repossessed Assets." This loss being capital in nature, should have been disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. The omission resulted in underassessment of income of Rs.6538841/- involving short levy of tax of Rs.2392725.00 Ongoing through the audit objection, it is found that there is substance in the issue raised by the audit. The loss on sale of repossessed assets is not allowable as trading loss in this case as held by the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motor and General Sales (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CIT (226 ITR 137). The facts of the case are also similar and in both the cases the vehicles are not registered in the name of respective assessee. This was the basis on which the court gave the ruling in favour of the revenue. Thus the information provided by the audit has material substance within the meaning of section 147 and the same is invokable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ge Capital Transportation Financial ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 July, 2016

8.1 Coming to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the Ld. D.R., we agree with the submissions advanced by Ld. A.R. that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. reported in 55 ITR 707 was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amount recoverable from the hirer, do constitute stock in trade.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ge Capital Transportation Financial ... vs Assessee on 23 September, 2015

5. As regards to Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal, the factual matrix are that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.1,70,83,682/- in respect of losses on re-possessed stock which were given on hire purchase, but was repossessed by the assessee because the borrowers defaulted on the installments. The Assessing Officer took the view that in light of the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Motor and General Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 137 and for the reasons given in the assessment order of Assessment Year 95-96, the loss on repossessed hire-purchase assets is not allowable as deduction because it is basically of the nature of capital loss/business loss.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 2 May, 2016

19. Assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 22,33,25,067/- as expenses arising out of loss on sale of repossessed assets. Assessee Company is engaged in the business of providing financial assistance to various customers against hypothecation of automobile or consumer durable products as security. In the event of default by the customers, such assets are repossessed by assessee from the lessses. Since these are repossessed assets, it is included in the balance sheet in the current assets as stock and credit is passed to the account of borrowers.Therefore, by passing this entry the assessee replaced the debtors by repossessed assets. When these assets are sold, excess or shortfall is booked as profit or loss in the profit and loss account and it is claimed as loss as a revenue loss/ profit. During the year, the ld. AO has disallowed this loss holding that this loss has not been actually incurred by the assessee. For disallowing this AO relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motor and General Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 226 ITR 137.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial ... vs Department Of Income Tax

In view of the decision in the case of Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. (supra) the loss on sale of repossessed assets was not allowable. He further submitted that loss claimed by the assessee is not allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) read with sec. 36(2) on the ground that the conditions laid down u/s 36(2) were not satisfied. The assessee was not in the business of banking or money lending in terms of sec. 36(2)(i). NBFCs do not have a banking or money lending licence and are subject to separate regulations. Therefore, the loss claimed was not allowable in terms of sec. 36(1)(vii) read with sec. 36(2) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next