Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. vs Joint Cit on 7 January, 2005
(h) George Maijo & Co. v. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 231 (Mad.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (1.00 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs English Indian Clays Ltd on 25 May, 2010
In George Maijo's case,
the assessee had imported goods. The seller had reported
that the goods were sent through ship which was reportedly
sank. CBI enquiry revealed that the contracted goods were
not put on Board. However, money was paid by the bank to
the foreign seller. It was a case wherein the seller played
fraud on the assessee.
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., ... vs Acit, Jaipur on 30 May, 2017
receipt. The fact that the assessee chooses to exploit the IEs in a different
manner, other than actual import, will not make any change in the character
of the receipt. The sale of import entitlement is one of the modes of
exploiting the import entitlement and therefore, will clearly be a revenue
receipt [George Maijo & Co. (Viag) v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 475 (Mad.)]. Similar
view has been taken in 1.
M/S Asia Power Projects Private Ltd., vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 August, 2014
12. The Madras High Court in the case of George
Maijo and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 231
ITR page.237 held when there is a direct intimate
connection between the business operation of the assessee
and the loss that has fallen on the assessee, though the
loss was occasioned by the act done by the seller, since the
18
assessee is not stated to be a party to the fraud committed
by the foreign seller, the loss would be allowable as
deduction as the loss is incidental to the business carried on
by the assessee.
1