Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Down Town Hospital Ltd. on 9 August, 2001

Hls Asia Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 24 February, 2020

34. Similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Down Town Hospital (P) Ltd. [267 ITR 439 (guj)]; Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital [225 ITR 845 (kar)]. The issue, which we are concerned with, is a fiscal issue which is concerned with a central statute. It is desirable that in such a matter there should be uniformity of the judicial opinion. Even on merits, the analogy has some substance. We, therefore, in the light of aforestated, decide this issue in the favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arceli Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 15(1)(1), Mumbai on 21 April, 2017

CIT vs Down Town Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 439 (Gau) held that the assessee filed details regarding source of funds of the party and their Income-tax File Numbers etc - no addition under s. 68 is permissible where shareholders are identified and it is established that they had invested the money in purchase of shares. (pp. 127 to 131 of 19 ITA No.6492/Mum/2016 Arceli Realty Limited (Formerly known as Ellora Electricals Ltd.) judgment compilation).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 65 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Down Town Hospital Pvt. Ltd. on 22 December, 2003

"The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the instant case has been sought to be assailed by Shri Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Revenue with reference to a decision of this court in CIT v. Down Town Hospital Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 683. In that case the assessee claimed deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I in respect of the entire hospital. The court held that in the absence of a clear finding to show that a new article or thing is manufactured or produced out of some raw materials, it is difficult to hold that the assessee, Down Town Hospital, is an industrial undertaking. This decision in our opinion is not applicable in the instant Case. The assessee claimed investment allowance as per the provisions of Section 32A(2) for the ultrasound medical diagnostic electrical equipment, air-conditioner and servo voltage stabilizer and not for the entire establishment.
Gauhati High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 14 - D Biswas - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Technotive Eastern (Pvt.) Ltd. on 13 December, 2001

2. The question which arose before the Tribunal was that whether the assessee is entitled to claim allowance under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on income earned through computer documentation service rendered to the customers. Sri U. Bhuyan, the learned advocate for the appellant, in support of his submission on computer documentation relies on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in CIT v. Down Town Hospital Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 683, wherein this court discussed in detail what is manufacture and at page 689 relying on the Supreme Court decision a passage was quoted from the Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, volume 26, page 795, that passage is again quoted below :
Gauhati High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - D Biswas - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Arihant Tiles And Marbles Private ... on 26 April, 2011

23. The Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V.DR.YOGENDAR SARMA reported in 311 ITR 372 considered the scope of Section 32 of the Act and held that the hospital cannot be considered as industrial undertaking and followed the Bombay High Court judgment and distinguished all other decisions of other High Courts and held that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act. We are inclined to agree with the other High Court judgments and disagree with the decisions of Delhi and Bombay High Courts. The Gauhati High Court, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL LTD., reported in 251 ITR 683, has considered the scope of deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I of the Act and held against the assessee on the ground that it does not manufacture or produce any article or thing. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has remanded the same to the High Court on the ground that there is no identification of the items installed in the hospital. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court has not considered the larger issue whether the hospital is an industrial undertaking or not, but set aside the Gauhati High Court's Judgment and remanded the matter with a direction to consider afresh since there is no identification of the items installed in the hospitals.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 17 - P P Raja - Full Document

Vacmet Packagings, Agra vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 November, 2012

• Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Down Town Hospitals (P) Ltd reported in 267 ITR 439 has held "That regarding amounts received as share application moneys, the Tribunal had given a clear finding after appreciation of the materials on record that the assessee had filed the details regarding the source 23 ITA No. 404, 406 & 404/Agra/2012 of funds of the parties and their income tax file numbers before the AO. According to the Tribunal, the assessee had also submitted before the AO the confirmations from the creditors where full addresses income tax file numbers, etc, were given. The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of the sums from the income of the assessee"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next