Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Jeyar Consultant & Investment Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Madras on 1 April, 2015

R.V. Investment & Dealers Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax

(v) Whether shares valued at cost or market price is immaterial to decide the issue on hand (Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 533 (SC) ). Following the ratio of this judgment, it is immaterial as to whether the shares have been valued at cost or market price. So by showing the shares at cost price by itself will not prove that the shares were 12 ITA 586/K/2009 M/s. R. V. Investment & Dealers Ltd..& 609/K/2009-Kirtivardhan Finvest Services Ltd. & CO 32&33/K/09 A.Y.05-06 held as investment and by showing them as investment, the assessee will not be benefited following the ratio of this judgment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ge Capital Transportation Financial ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 July, 2016

"I have considered the submissions of the assessee. The assessee may be governed by the 17 I.T.A.No.763,514/Del/2011 statutory bodies regulating; it's conduct in ordinary course of business but the income has to be computed strictly in accordance with the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The investment constitute capital asset in the hands of the assessee, therefore any loss on account of sale of capital asset cannot be claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account of the assessee. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Investment Ltd Vs CIT -77 ITR 533 wherein it was held that nomenclature of a particular item does not decide it's nature. A tax payer is free to employ for the purpose of his trade his own method of keeping accounts. In that case the assessee involved was a dealer of shares. Applying the same logic the loss claimed on stock in Trade cannot be treated as a revenue loss because the assessee is not regularly engaged in the business dealing in shares. It has been observed in the profit and loss account of, the assessee for this year and the last so many years that no purchase of shares has been done. The loss, which has arisen, is on account of shares and government securities held for a very long time. By treating part of it as stock in Trade the assessee does not become entitled to claim the loss on stock- in trade. In the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing 82 ITR 363 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that accounting entries in the books of the assessee do not decide the taxable income of the assessee. In the instant case not a single share has been purchased for last many years. There is no regular purchase and sale activity of shares by the assessee. Vide submission dated .03.2005 the assessee has submitted that the company being NBFC is engaged in the business of shares and securities. However, it is seen that there is no dealing in shares for last many years. The assessee is just showing them as stock in trade in its books but no dealing business of share is being done. The treatment of shares in the books as stock in trade does not entitled the assessee to claim the shares held by it for a very long period as "business Loss. Not 18 I.T.A.No.763,514/Del/2011 even mentioning of the phrase dealing in shares and securities in the object clause of memorandum and article of association of company decide that the business of the company is dealing in shares. What has to be seen is whether the activity of sale and purchase of shares for earning business profits has been done or not. The assessee company fails this test."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 February, 2024

25. For all the reasons afore-stated, the appeal [ITA/153/2011] is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and substantial question of law Nos. (1), (2) and (4) are answered accordingly. Case is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh on the substantial question of law No.1 for apportionment of expenditure (interest paid on finance) in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd.(Supra).
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Bharadwaj - Full Document

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur on 5 June, 2020

3.20. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [77 ITR 533, 537-538 (SC)] that a tax payer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade either at cost or at market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly employed may be discarded, only if in the opinion of the taxing authorities, income of the trade cannot be properly deduced there from. The valuation of stock at cost is one of the recognized methods. No inference may therefore, arise from the employment by the method of valuing stock at cost (or market value whichever is lower).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai on 7 November, 2022

Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC) 'para 8' In the balance sheet, it is true, the securities and shares are valued at cost, but no firm conclusion can be drawn from the method of keeping accounts. A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade either at cost or market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities, income of the trade cannot be properly deduced therefrom. Valuation of stock at cost is one of the recognized methods.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suashish Diamonds Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl Cit Rg 5(3), Mumbai on 31 May, 2019

In Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) this court held (page 290 of 34 7 ITR) "30. Sub-section (2) of section 14A cf the said Act provides the manner in which the Assessing Officer is to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. However, if we examine the provision carefully, we would find that the Assessing Officer is required to determine the amount of such expenditure only if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee,. is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. In other words, the requirement of the Assessing Officer embarking upon a determination of the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income would be triggered only if the Assessing Officer returns a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. Therefore, the condition precedent for the Assessing Officer entering upon a determination of the 18 ITA Nos.7508 & 7058/Mum/2014 amount of the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income is that the Assessing Officer must record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the asses- see in respect of such expenditure. Sub-section (3) is nothing but an offshoot of subsection (2) of section 14A. Sub-section (3) applies to cases where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. In other words, sub-section (2) deals with cases where the assessee specifies a positive amount of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act and sub-section (3) applies to cases where the assessee asserts that no expenditure had been incurred in relation to exempt income. In both cases, the Assessing Officer, if satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure in accordance with any prescribed method, as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 14A of the said Act. It is only if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, in both cases, that the Assessing Officer gets jurisdiction to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act in accordance with the prescribed method. The prescribed method being the method stipulated in rule 8D of the said Rules. While rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to the expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to exempt income, the Assessing Officer would have to indicate cogent reasons for the same," (emphasis' supplied)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next