Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning And Oil Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 1980

State Bank Of Saurashtra vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 December, 2004

In the case of Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning & Oil Mills (supra), before the Madras High Court, the assessee entered into a forward contract for delivery of groundnut oil, but settled the same not by actual delivery, but payment of difference and the Court held that it was a speculative transaction. This also not the case of non-performance of the contract, for which damages are to paid, but a settlement of the contract without delivery of goods, and, therefore, cannot be equated to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 109 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Motor And General Finance Ltd. vs Dcit, Spl. Range-16 on 29 January, 2004

In the case of Rama Krishna Oil Mills v. CIT 56 ITR 186 the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the only conditions required for allowing the claim for deduction in respect of interest Under Section 10(2)(iii) are - firstly, that money must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose business; and thirdly, the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as a deduction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

Meenakshi Synthetics (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 June, 2002

In the case of Rama Krishna Oil Mills v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 186 (MP), the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the only conditions required to be satisfied in order to enable the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of interest under Section 10(2)(iii) are, firstly, that money must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business and thirdly, the assessee must have paid interest on the said amount and claimed it as a deduction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 38 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Swamini Leasing & Investment (P) Ltd. vs Joint Cit on 28 January, 2004

In other two judgments, i.e., Abdul Ghani Haji Habib & Ors. v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 6 (Cal) and Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning & Oil Mills v. CIT ('1982) 133 ITR 85 (Mad), it was held that where forward contracts entered into by an assessee carrying on regular business are settled not by actual delivery of goods but by payment of price difference, such contracts will be speculative in nature. It was contended that the assessee had not settled any transaction by payment of price difference but have actually executed each transaction in terms of actual delivery of shares and hence these two judgments are also clearly distinguishable from the present case. The learned Authorised Representative also argued that apart from trading in shares, the assessee- company had advanced loans also in all the 3 years and earned interest in assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The details of loans and interest earned is appearing on page No. 3 of the paper book and on this basis, it was contended that the assessee- company is a loans and advance company and therefore, out of purview of the Explanation to section 73.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bs & B Safety Systems (India) Ltd., ... vs The Additional Cit, Chennai on 25 September, 2017

2.1 In view of the above facts, relying on the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning & Oil Mills v. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 85 which held that the loss on forward contract settled not by actual delivery but by payment of differences as speculative business and the decision of the Honorable ITAT, Bangalore 'A' Bench in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (P) Ltd. (2010) 39 DTR 97 wherein it was held that settlement of Forward contracts without actual delivery of currency is a speculative transaction under section 43(5), the AO held that the net loss of F.10,66,499/- claimed by the assessee towards :-4-: I.T.A. No.2937/Mds/2016 cancellation of forward contract falls within the ambit of speculative business which cannot be allowed to be set off against the normal business income as per Sec.73 and allowed it to be carried forward for set off against any speculation income that may arise in any succeeding financial years.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1