Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing K.K. Doshi And Co. vs Cit on 25 October, 2007

Imc Limited vs D. Comm. Of I.T. Spec. Range -14 Cal on 22 December, 2008

Dr.Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the appeal contended that the point has already been decided by the Apex Court in K.K. Doshi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2008] 297 ITR 38 where the question arose whether the perspective effect should be given to 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1991 with effect from April 1, 1992 and the Court held that such amendment is prospective in nature and effect to the explanation, which has been included, should be given prospectively and not by retrospectively and such being the position, Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue also did not join issue with regard thereto and since the matter has already cover by the said decision, it is not necessary for us to decide the said 2 question, which has gone in favour of the assessee and the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the appeallant.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Marathon Trading & Investment P. Ltd, ... vs Assessee

3. Before us the Learned AR for the assessee submitted that the nature of interest income as business income had already been decided by the AO in the assessment order dated 27.3.2000 in which the returned business income had been accepted. The assessee had raised disputes only in relation to denial of deduction under section 80HHC and the tribunal had restored the issue to the file of AO to only decide the claim of deduction under section 80HHC. The AO however had added the interest income of Rs.70,720/- returned by the assessee as business income as income from other sources which was beyond his jurisdiction. As regards allowability of deduction under section 80HHC it was submitted that the assessment year involved being 1991-92 the provisions of Explanation (baa) were not applicable. He referred to the judgment of Hon'ble 3 Supreme Court in case of K.K.Doshi & Co. Vs CIT (297 ITR 38) in which it has been held that the amended provision of section 80HHC were applicable on from A.Y.1992-93 and not with retrospective effect. It was also submitted that the interest income having been assessed as business income, deduction under section 80HHC had to be allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1