Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Karsondas Ranchhoddass (Legal Heir Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 19 January, 1971

Ceres Capital And Financial Serviecs ... vs Dcit 12(1)(2), Mumbai on 29 March, 2019

8. We have also deliberated at length on the observations of the lower authorities that as the assessee had not earned any business income chargeable to tax under Sec. 28 during the year, therefore, the expenses claimed by it viz. (i) managerial remuneration to the working director Sh. Sanjay Kumar Maheshka : Rs. 44,42,130/-; and (ii) contribution to provident fund : Rs. 7,77,996/- were not to be allowed as a deduction as per the provisions of Sec. 29 of the IT Act, and are unable to find ourselves to be in agreement with the said observations. In fact, as observed by us at length hereinabove the lower authorities had proceeded with on the basis of the misconceived fact that the assessee had not carried out any business activities during the year under consideration. We find substantial force in the contention advanced by the Ld. A.R that a period of inactivity in the business for whatsoever reason would not be conclusive for deciding the allowability of expenditure in the hands of the assessee. As is discernible from the records, as there is neither any evidence which would reveal that the assessee during the year had given up its intention of doing any further business or abandoned or discontinued the same, therefore, merely for the reason that no revenue from the business operations was recognized during the year would by no means justify disallowance of the expenses that were wholly and exclusively incurred by the assessee in the course of its business. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Karsondas Ranchhoddass Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1 (Bom) and that of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Page |9 ITA No.3266/Mum/2017 AY: 2013-14 M/s Ceres Capital and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT-12(1)(2) Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC). Rather, the fact that in the immediately succeeding year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 and thereafter i.e. in A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17 the assessee had accounted for its business income fortifies the fact that the it had at no stage ceased its business during the year under consideration. We thus being of the considered view that as the expenses incurred by the assessee towards
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uttam Chand Nahar vs Ito on 18 September, 2002

10. We have considered the rival submissions regarding ground Nos. 3(a) and 3(b). The learned authorised representative contended that when the time to issue notice under section 143(2) is available the assessing officer should not have proceeded under section 147 of the Act for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The learned authorised representative had relied on the case of Ranchhoddas v. CIT (supra) wherein it was held that where in respect of any year a return had been voluntarily submitted before assessment, the assessing officer cannot choose to ignore the return and any notice of reassessment and consequent assessment under section 34 ignoring the return is invalid.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shipping Times (India) P.Ltd. , Mumbai vs Assessee on 17 September, 2008

6. As seen from the facts of the case, the assessee has not discontinued the business at all and there is only a temporary stoppage during the year under consideration. The assessee has offered income from the property and interest 3 ITA 4387/M/2008 Shipping Times (India) P Ltd income, machine hire charges and also short term capital gain. This indicates that the company has continued its activities during the year and part of activity is business in nature like machine hire charges received. Only activity that was not done during the year is printing and processing of its shipping times, but, it cannot be considered as 'business not in existence'. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Karsondas Ranchhoddass vs CIT 83 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that a clear distinction, however, should be kept in mind between the cessation of a business and temporary lull in the business activity. The loss incurred by an assessee on the sale of certain shares cannot be treated as a capital loss merely because, although the assessee was dealer in shares, there was a long period of inactivity attributable not to an intention to discontinue the business but only to a certain temporary stoppage.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uttam Chand Nahar vs Income Tax Officer on 18 September, 2002

10. We have considered the rival submissions regarding ground Nos. 3(a) and 3(b). The learned authorised representative contended that when the time to issue notice under Section 143(2) is available the AO should not have proceeded under Section 147 of the Act for issue of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The learned authorised representative had relied on the case of Ranchhoddas v. CIT (supra) wherein it was held that where in respect of any year a return had been voluntarily submitted before assessment, the AO cannot choose to ignore the return and any notice of reassessment and consequent assessment under s, 34 ignoring the return is invalid.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 50 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs Assessee

40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranchhoddas Karsandas Vs. CIT, Bombay Circle 26 ITR 105 (SC) held that notice under section 34 (sec. 147 in 1961 Act) issued after the assessee had filed voluntarily return and assessment made thereafter was not valid in law. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the return having been made it must be disposed off and the income of the assessee must be assessed as laid down in section 23 of 1922 Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next