Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.50 seconds)Documents citing
Commissioner Of Income Tax -I Aayakar ... vs M/S Carlton Hotel Pvt Ltd. Rana Pratap ... on 31 January, 2017
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Aayakar ... vs M/S The Upper India Couper Paper Mills ... on 25 January, 2018
Therefore, transfer of land as such resulting in capital gain could not have been worked out in A.Y. 2004-05 in the manner as has been done by Assessee since it did not own land in A.Y. 2004-05. It has not come on record, when Assessee got title of land after execution of freehold deed/sale deed from State Government. The Builder's agreement with respect to share in land and transfer of land under the impression that land itself has been converted into 'stock in trade' is nothing but a colourable transaction and it amounts to fraud. A similar issue has been considered in detail by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Carlton Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein after setting aside judgment of Tribunal, Court remanded the matter to decide in the light of discussion made in the said judgment.
Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), ... vs Shrilekha Business Consultancy Pvt ... on 4 November, 2020
10.15. With regard to two case laws relied upon by the ld. DR
before us, viz, decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Carlton Hotel Pvt. Ltd., reported in 399 ITR 611(All) and the
decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Wipro
Ltd., 227 Taxman 244(Kar) are concerned, the said decisions are factually
distinguishable in as much as they were concerned with the taxability of
capital gains. The ld. DR had also argued before us that there cannot be
any levy of capital gains in the instant case as assessee is not engaged in
the business activity of purchase and sale of shares and hence, there
cannot be any business income or capital gains. Kind reference is drawn
to arguments advanced by the ld. DR in this regard which is considered in
para 7.1. supra. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR
hereinabove, does not advance the case of the revenue.
Mrs. Ravi Bala Garg And Anr. vs Mrs. Tabassum Ghazala And 7 Others on 20 January, 2025
In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carlton Hotel Pvt. Ltd.,2017 SCC Online All 3871 (DB) =(2017) 399 ITR 611, it has been held by division bench of this court that after expiry of lease, if lessee continued in possession, he cannot ask for advantage of principle of holding over, recognized under Act, 1882, for the reason that his continued possession thereafter would become unauthorized, and in view of section 2 of Act, 1882, he shall not be protected by any provision of Act, 1882 and status of lessees after expiry of period of lease is that of "unauthorised occupants". Lease stands terminated by efflux of time after expiry of original period of lease. There is no automatic or temporary renewal.
Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. ... vs Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai on 21 November, 2025
6.2.29 The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held in the case of
CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 52 (Madras) has held that the
AO's disallowance of expenses was not justified without rejecting the
books of accounts under Section 145(3).
Nitesh Agarwal,Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 January, 2025
(ii) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARG LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (2017) 396 ITR 0580 (Mad), (2017) 249 TAXMAN
0521 (Madras)
"4(c) Therefore, it is sine qua non that the AO to come to a conclusion that the
Books of Accounts maintained by the Assessee are incorrect, incomplete or
unreliable and reject the Books of Accounts before the proceeding to make his
own assessment. In the instant case, there is no reference in the Assessment
Order of the AO regarding rejection of Books of Accounts."
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs S K T Studios, Chennai on 4 July, 2025
Disallowance without rejecting the books was deemed
unjustified
8.6.9 The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held in the case of CIT v. Marg
Ltd. (2020)[2020] 119 taxmann.com 173 (Madras) has held that the AO's
disallowance of expenses was not justified without rejecting the books of
accounts under Section 145(3).
Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. ... vs Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai on 1 December, 2025
6.2.29 The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held in the case of CIT v.
Marg Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 52 (Madras) has held that the AO's
disallowance of expenses was not justified without rejecting the books of
accounts under Section 145(3).
Maheshwari Megaventures Limited ... vs Acit, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad on 3 May, 2024
Ltd., 320 ITR 345 (Mad) and also in the case of Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Ito 122 TTJ 145; whereas learned DR placed reliance on the decisions
reported in the cases of CIT vs. Carlton Hotel (P.) Ltd., [2017] 88
taxmann.com 257 (Allahabad) and Saras Metals (P.)
Sarrangan Ashok, Chennai vs Ito Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai on 19 August, 2019
6. On the other hand, the Ld.Senior DR submitted that the
entire transaction of contribution of asset to the partnership firm is a
sham transaction and it is a device adopted to evade the taxes. He
placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the
case of CIT, Lucknow vs. Carlton Hotel (P) Ltd., reported in 399 ITR
611 and the provisions of Section 50C of the Act shall override the
provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act. He further submitted that the
provisions of Section 50C of the Act prevail over the provisions of
Section 45(3) of the Act as the provisions of Section 50C of the Act
are special provisions.