Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (And Vice ... on 27 April, 1994

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar ... on 18 June, 2001

The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 361, has no application to the facts of the present case. In that matter, the deposit collected from the shareholders in exchange for occupancy rights was treated by the court as a non-refundable deposit. Therefore, the court came to the conclusion that interest on such deposits was deductible.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Aakash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 September, 2016

whereby it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. WIAA Club Limited( Supra) that non-refundable entrance fee is not exigible to tax being a capital receipts.The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Nirmal Commercial Limited(supra) held that non-refundable interest bearing deposits received by the tax-payer from the shareholders for allotting occupancy rights are chargeable to tax as revenue receipts, The said decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 193 ITR 694 in the case of Shree Nirmal Commercial Limited(supra) was later reiterated by the Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the same tax-payer for subsequent assessment years in CIT v. Shree Nirmal Commercial Limited (1995) 213 ITR361(Bom.)(FB).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sukhdev Singh L/H Of Late Smt. Suman ... vs Assessee on 31 May, 2012

13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case before us the reasons for reopening of assessment in the captioned assessment years was the report of the DVO and in the absence of any information or incriminating document found during the course of assessment proceedings, we find no merit in the exercise of power by the Assessing Officer under section 147/148 of the Act. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Dhari ya Constructions Co. (supra) and by the Lucknow Bench in ITO Vs. Shree Ram Verma (supra), we hold that the opinion of the DVO in relation to the cost of construction of the building owned by the assessee, in the absence of any other information collected against the assessee is not an information and reopening of assessment by way of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act are invalid and are hereby cancelled. Consequentl y, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is hereby cancelled. In view of our canceling the assessment framed in the hands of the assessee we do not address the various other issues raised by the assessee against the merits of addition. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. on 5 February, 1997

This view has again been reiterated by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nirmal Commercial Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 361. It bears repetition that the claim of the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1986-87 and accepted by the department for 1989-90. The income on account of set-off for the year under consideration has already been brought to tax by the revenue in the assessment year 1988-89, which order has become final. Thus, there is no necessity, in my view, to disturb only one assessment year, viz., 1985-86.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abbott Hotels Pvt.Ltd., , Ahmednagar vs Assessee on 30 April, 2010

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v CIT (supra), which has also been followed by the 7 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (supra), and Gopal Purohit (supra), held that though the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to tax proceedings and that each year is a separate year, yet the rule of consistency must be followed and the income that was taxed under the head capital gains in earlier year must also be taxed under the same head of income when the facts and the law on the subject are unchanged.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. ... on 4 August, 1998

15. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that cl. (v) of s. 2(47) will be applicable even though written agreement was not executed because cl. (v) only requires contract of the nature referred to in s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the Departmental Representative such contract need not be one which is necessarily contemplated under s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act because the wording used in cl. (v) of s. 2(47) was "contract of the nature referred to in s. 53A". Reliance was placed on CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 361 (Bom)(FB) and CIT vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) (1994) 207 ITR 148 P&H).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Kasat Textiles (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 November, 1997

He further contended that even the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (1994) 213 ITR 361 (Bom), indirectly supports the case of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed that the rental income wrongly assessed by the AO as income from house property should be computed as business income of the assessee and consequentially depreciation, etc. should be allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next