Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Supra Craft Packaging (P) Ltd., Alwar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 23 January, 2019

Ram Prasad & Ors. vs Addl. Dist. Judge Court No. 4 Spl. Judge ... on 18 December, 2019

The Full Bench also noticed decision of the Supreme Court in Mela Ram & sons (supra) v. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC), wherein inter alia the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income v. Shahzadi Begum AIR 1952 Madras 232, which had held that if the appeal is dismissed as incompetent or is rejected as it was filed out of time and no sufficient cause was established, it results in an affirmation of the order appealed against.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Kashi Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Law And ... on 19 December, 2019

The Full Bench also noticed decision of the Supreme Court in Mela Ram & sons (supra) v. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC), wherein inter alia the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income v. Shahzadi Begum AIR 1952 Madras 232, which had held that if the appeal is dismissed as incompetent or is rejected as it was filed out of time and no sufficient cause was established, it results in an affirmation of the order appealed against.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Smt. Rama Devi And Anr. vs Addl.Dist. And Session Judge,Room ... on 3 February, 2020

The Full Bench also noticed decision of the Supreme Court in Mela Ram & sons (supra) v. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC), wherein inter alia the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income v. Shahzadi Begum AIR 1952 Madras 232, which had held that if the appeal is dismissed as incompetent or is rejected as it was filed out of time and no sufficient cause was established, it results in an affirmation of the order appealed against.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - R Roy - Full Document

Dcit- 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs Opera Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai on 22 June, 2021

In this regard he has referred to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (supra), CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra), Vijay Kunnir Talwar Vs. CIT (supra) and Bombay High Court in Shri Naresh Pahuja (supra). Although the assessee has made elaborate submission before learned CIT(A), Learned CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue only on the premise that the assessee has submitted necessary papers in support of the loan. That the loans were through banking channels. He only relied upon the case laws from Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court which were delivered with reference to bogus share capital and share premium cases which is not at all the case here. Moreover, the case laws referred by learned Counsel of the assessee are also with reference to 13 M /s . O p e r a Inf r a P r o j e c ts P v t. L td .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Hari Narain Parwal, Huf, Jaipur on 24 February, 2022

12. Mr. Hossain's submissions relating to the startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence produced by the Respondent. With regard to the claim that observations made by the CIT(A) were in conflict with the Impugned Order, we may only note that the said observations are general in nature and later in the order, the CIT(A) itself notes that the broker did not respond to the notices. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) has only approved the order of the AO, following the same reasoning, and relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing. Lastly, reliance placed by the Revenue on Suman Poddar v. ITO (supra) and SumatiDayal v. CIT (supra) is of no assistance.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 104 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd.,, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 28 April, 2023

"15. After considering the respective submissions, we are not in a position to take a view different from what is taken by the Tribunal in the instant case. In the facts of this case, it is apparent that at the time of admission, the students are required to deposit the whole fee of the entire course, but that would only remain a 'deposit' or 'advance' and it cannot be said that this fee had become 'due' at the time of deposit. Fee is charged in advance for the entire course, presumably because of the reason that there should not be any default in making the said by the students during the period of course. Interestingly, the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has himself stated that "students were required to deposit the fee for the whole module of course at the time of registration itself'. The Assessing Officer has used the expression 'deposit'. In the very next breadth, he draws the conclusion that this would mean that the fee had become 'due'. Thus, the Assessing Officer knew the significance of the expression 'deposit' viz-a-viz 'due', though he committed the mistake in treating the said deposit as the fee becoming due. When we applies the principles of law laid down in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 22 ITA No. 109/Pun/2007 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune 1 (SC), it becomes apparent that the fee was not due the time of deposit. The services in respect of financial year 1997-98, for which also the payment was taken in advance were yet to be rendered.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 94 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs Acit, Range-8, Kolkata, Kolkata on 10 May, 2024

40. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we observe that the claim of marked to market loss is allowable business expenditure and a settled issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) and ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 180 (SC). The AO has simply made the disallowance by following CBDT Instruction No. 3/ 2010 dated 23 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs Itc Limited, Kolkata on 10 May, 2024

40. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we observe that the claim of marked to market loss is allowable business expenditure and a settled issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) and ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 180 (SC). The AO has simply made the disallowance by following CBDT Instruction No. 3/ 2010 dated 23 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs Acit, Range-8, Kolkata, Kolkata on 10 May, 2024

40. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we observe that the claim of marked to market loss is allowable business expenditure and a settled issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) and ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 180 (SC). The AO has simply made the disallowance by following CBDT Instruction No. 3/ 2010 dated 23 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next