Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing V.D. Swami And Co. Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 August, 1992

Ajar Entrade (P) Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 28 February, 2005

Similarly it has been held in various cases that pendency of suit or legal proceedings does not disentitle the assessee to claim bad debts as has been held in ITAT orders at Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. ITO (1983) 16 TTJ (All) 65, V.D. Swami & Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1993) 44 ITD 91 (Mad) and Sutlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (1998) 96 Taxman 29 (Del).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashwini Kumar Consultants (P.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 July, 1993

She also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in V.D. Swami & Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1993] 44 ITD 91 (Mad.), for the proposition that, the intention of Section 80HHC being to identify the export profits and commission earned in India, could not be considered for working out the export profits or for working out the eligible deduction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hukumchand Jute And Industries Ltd. on 11 June, 1993

8. Reliance has been placed on another decision of the Madras High Court in V. D. Swami and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 425. In that case, the claim of the assessee-company engaged in the business of supplying iron and steel goods outside India for grant of weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Act in respect of certain expenses incurred by it in India was negatived by the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H.M.T. (International) Ltd. on 27 November, 1992

8. However, Mr. Raghavendra Rao relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in V. D. Swami and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT . It was a case where the deduction was claimed under sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b). The language of the sub-clause is quite clear that it specifically excludes the expenditure incurred in India from being considered for the purpose of weighted deduction. While considering the scope of the said clause, the High Court observed (at page 428) :
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Design & Automation on 19 September, 2008

v) The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 30th March, 1999 appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 24th August, 2001 came to the finding that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal recorded that reliance was placed by the assessee before the CIT(A) on the decision reported in the case of V.D.Swami and Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1993) 44 ITD 91 and in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 196 ITR 188. The Tribunal recorded that the scope of interference under sec.263 is not to set aside merely unfavourable orders and bring to tax some money to the treasury nor is the section meant to get ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:52:36 ::: -6- sheer escapement of revenue. It is taken care of by other provisions of the Act. It was recorded that section 263 is to be invoked not as a jurisdictional corrective or as a review of subordinate order in exercise of supervisory powers but it is to be invoked and employed only for the purpose of setting right distortions and prejudices to the revenue. The Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, came to a finding that since the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view and considering the decisions relied upon by the assessee the condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 did not exist and the order of the CIT(A) was quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Jeyar Consultant And Investment (P.) ... vs Assistant Commissioner on 31 March, 1993

16. As we see it, from whichever angle we approach the matter - whether from the angle of Section 80HHC(3)(a) or from the angle of Section 80HHC(3)(b) - the deduction admissible to the assessee Is 'NIL'. If, as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of V.D. Swami & Co. Ltd. (supra), the main thrust of Section 80HHC is that the profits attributable to the export business must be identifiable, then we have before us a clear case of loss arising out of export business and that consequently, deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act will be nil.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1