Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.94 seconds)
Documents citing Commr.Of Income Tax,Delhi-Iv vs M/S Goyal M.G.Gases Pvt.Ltd. on 11 March, 2016

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi on 10 September, 2020

"240. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is a fact that these deposits are received in terms of sale agreement for customers as security deposit till the formation of condominium and society. These deposits are taken as a safeguard to defray the maintenance expenditure of the society and to keep these deposits for insurance premium and maintenance. They are refundable to resident welfare associations. CIT (A) relying on the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Gases Pvt. Ltd. - 188 ITR 216 (Del.) held that security deposit cannot be charged to tax as an income. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) when deposits are with a purpose, the depositors are identified, there is a regular method of accounting adopted in past for treatment of this income which is accepted by the revenue and there is an obligation cast upon the assessee. Hence, ground no.28 of the revenue‟s appeal is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi on 29 September, 2020

"240. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is a fact that these deposits are received in terms of sale agreement for customers as security deposit till the formation of condominium and society. These deposits are taken as a safeguard to defray the maintenance expenditure of the society and to keep these deposits for insurance premium and maintenance. They are refundable to resident welfare associations. CIT (A) relying on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Gases Pvt. Ltd. - 188 ITR 216 (Del.) held that security deposit cannot be charged to tax as an income. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) when deposits are with a purpose, the depositors are identified, there is a regular method of accounting adopted in past for treatment of this income which is accepted by the revenue and there is an obligation cast upon the assessee. Hence, ground no.28 of the revenue's appeal is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi on 27 May, 2019

"240. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is a fact that these deposits are received in terms of sale agreement for customers as security deposit till the formation of condominium and society. These deposits are taken as a safeguard to defray the maintenance expenditure of the society and to keep these deposits for insurance premium and maintenance. They are refundable to resident welfare associations. CIT (A) relying on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Gases Pvt. Ltd. - 188 ITR 216 (Del.) held that security deposit cannot be charged to tax I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 132 as an income. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) when deposits are with a purpose, the depositors are identified, there is a regular method of accounting adopted in past for treatment of this income which is accepted by the revenue and there is an obligation cast upon the assessee. Hence, ground no.28 of the revenue's appeal is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 102 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

National Stock Exchange Of India Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax

In any case, Ld. Counsel of the assessee had rightly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goyal Gases Pvt. Ltd. [supra]. In this case assessee was carrying on the business of filling gas bought by it in the cylinders and supplying the same to the customers. Though cylinders are directly used by the customers, but the assessee could not have carried out its business without giving such cylinders to the customers. Therefore, it was held that assessee was entitled to deduction of repairs as well as depreciation on such cylinders. In the case before us, the analogy of gas cylinders is fully applicable to the VSAT antenna and monitor installed in the premises of the broker members because without it assessee could not have carried on its business. Again in the case of CIT VSAT.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Magna Credit & Financial Services ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 September, 2018

24.In Goyal M.G.Gases (P) Ltd., (supra), the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on computers purchased by the assessee and leased back to another company and both companies being under the same Management. The CIT (A) confirmed the order as well as the Tribunal and the challenge to the said order before the High Court was rejected. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty for understatement of income on sale of cylinders and for bogus claim of depreciation on computers. This order of penalty was confirmed by the CIT (A) and partially confirmed by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded permitting the assessee to cross examine certain persons. On denova consideration, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer which was upheld by the Tribunal and the said order was challenged before the High Court. The Court after considering the factual aspects held that it is difficult to believe that the assessee would have known true nature of the transaction and that it was of the bonafide view that it actually owned and leased computers on which it claimed depreciation. It was further held that even though the assessee might have furnished all particulars for a tripartite transaction, the fact that what it put up in its return was a sham and mere paper transaction leading to the inevitable conclusion that the explanation of the assessee on the question of its ownership and use of the computers is unsubstantiated and malafide. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessee Officer was restored.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest ... vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, ... on 9 May, 2024

1. It was held in CIT v. Goyal Private family specific Trust, (1988) 171 ITR 698,701-02(All), that the orders of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Writing an order in detail may be a legal requirement, but the order not fulfilling this requirement, cannot be said to be erroneous and pre-judicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Assessing Officer in having reached the conclusion that the income of the trust was exempt in its hands and was assessable only in the hands of the beneficiaries. The Commissioner having failed to point out any error, no error can be inferred from the orders of the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that they are bereft of details. If the order is not erroneous, then it cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the case of the assessee no error has been pointed out in the notice hence the notice is liable to be quashed as there is nothing erroneous and therefore nothing prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest ... vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, ... on 9 May, 2024

1. It was held in CIT v. Goyal Private family specific Trust, (1988) 171 ITR 698,701-02(All), that the orders of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Writing an order in detail may be a legal requirement, but the order not fulfilling this requirement, cannot be said to be erroneous and pre-judicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Assessing Officer in having reached the conclusion that the income of the trust was exempt in its hands and was assessable only in the hands of the beneficiaries. The Commissioner having failed to point out any error, no error can be inferred from the orders of the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that they are bereft of details. If the order is not erroneous, then it cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the case of the assessee no error has been pointed out in the notice hence the notice is liable to be quashed as there is nothing erroneous and therefore nothing prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs Cit 2, Mumbai on 23 January, 2024

16. He further submitted that, from the bare perusal of the order of the ld. PCIT it could be seen that, firstly, in the impugned order it is the agreed position that transfer of capital assets being 144.06 crores shares of TTSL has taken place in the hands of the appellant by virtue of the Scheme; secondly, the CIT 18 ITA No.3468/Mum/2016 M/s. Tata Sons Limited in the impugned order has set out and based his decision on an entirely incorrect legal principle that the provisions of section 48 fail and therefore no capital loss can be determined in a case where no consideration is received/ accrues to the transferor of the capital asset. No basis has been set out for this erroneous conclusion/assertion of the ld. PCIT. Further, this is contrary to well-settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of inter alia Srinivasa Setty (B.C.) 128 ITR 294 and D. P Sandu Brothers Chembur Pvt. Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the correct principle laid down by the courts is that the capital gain computation provisions may be held not to apply, if and only if, any part thereof cannot conceivably be attracted. The correct principle is that if it is impossible to conceive of consideration as a result of the transfer (here the reduction in the capital under the Scheme), then perhaps, it could be urged that the provisions of section 48 of the Act do not apply. However, in the instant case, although no consideration has been received by or has accrued to the appellant, it is certainly possible to conceive of consideration being received or receivable in such cases.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next