Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pradeshiya Industrial And Investment ... on 11 August, 2005

M/S Amrit Corp. Ltd. (Formerly M/S Amrit ... vs The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... on 29 April, 2014

1- CIT v. Pradeshiya Ind'l & Invt Corp 230 CTR 131 (All) 2- Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CIT: 270 ITR 290 (P&H) 3- Hindustan Lever Limited: 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 4-Jarshan Textile Mills (P) Ltd. v. DCIT 284 ITR 542 (Bom) 5- German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT 287 ITR 494 (Bom) 6- CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram (HUF) 306 ITR 173 (Del) 7- Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. v. CIT: 175 Taxman 262 (Del) 8- CIT v. Motor & General Finance 184 Taxman 465 (Del) 9- Kaira District Cooperative v. ACIT 216 ITR 371 (Guj) 10- Vishwanath Prasad Ashok Kumar Sarraf v. CIT: 327 ITR 190 (All) 11-Vikram Kothari (HUF) v. State of U.P.: 200 Taxman 152 (All) 12-CIT v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd. 332 ITR 324 (All) 13- Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. ACIT: 339 ITR 72 (All) 14- Smt. Raj Rani Gulati v. UOI: 329 ITR 370 (All) E- Intention of trade--key element to decipher the adventure in the nature of trade 1-Bhohilal H. Patel vs. CIT: 74 ITR 692 (Bom) 2- CIT v. Anandlal Becharlal & Co: 107 ITR 677 (Bom) 3- Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT: 57 ITR 21 (SC) 4- CIT v. MLM Mahalingam: [1977] 107 ITR 236 (Mad) 5- Kaur Singh v. CIT: 144 ITR 756 (P&H) 6- CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad) 7-CIT v. B.K. Bhaumik: 245 ITR 614 (Del) 8-CIT v. Mohakapur Ice & Cold Storage: 281 ITR 354 (All) 9-Badrilal Bholaram v. CIT 135 ITR 216 (MP) 10- CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the petitioner has been granted permission for change of land use from industrial land to the residential land and the development was carried out by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, during the year under consideration for which the petitioner has paid substantial amount in the year consideration, therefore, such act of the petitioner amounts to conversion or the treatment of the capital asset as stock-in-trade. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the 'Capital Gain' under Section 45(2) and also ought to have disclosed the business profit, but since 'Capital Gain' under Section 45(2) has not been disclosed, there was an escaped assessment and the notice has rightly been issued under Section 148 of the Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has calculated 'Long Term Capital Gain' taking the rate of the land at Rs.190/= per sq. yard on the basis of the valuation report as on 1.4.1981, while the assessing authority, on the basis of the letter of the UPSIDC, has taken the valuation at Rs. 20/- per sq. yard and this amounts to non-disclosure of the correct rate and is sufficient material to initiate the proceeding.
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Pravin R.Shah, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax

7. If reasons recorded did not reflect these ingredients then reopening cannot be sustained. On the aspect of necessity to mention the failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment Hon. Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 324(All) has observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravi Dubey, Agra vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 November, 2011

9. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the case, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is independent of any other provisions of the Act. The cases relied upon by the ld. Authorised Representative cannot give any benefit to the assessee in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation Limited (supra) and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Limited (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Banas Sand Toll Tax Collection, Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 October, 2015

9. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has argued that these additions are deeming additions and had no relation with the income estimated on the basis of net profit rate. The ld DR has drawn our attention on the decision of Hon'ble Agra Bench of ITAT dated 21/11/2011 in the case of ITO 1(3), Agra Vs. Shri Ravi Dubey in ITA No. 228/Agr/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein it has been held that CIT(A) was not right where book having been rejected by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act then separate disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not tenable by relying the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Limited (2010) 325 ITR 583 (All.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vimlachal Print & Pack Pvt.Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 11 February, 2016

8. If reasons recorded did not reflect these ingredients then reopening cannot be sustained. On the aspect of necessity to mention the failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment Hon. Allahabad High Court I T A N o s . 8 4 7 / A h d / 1 2 & 2 6 5 1 / A h d / 1 3 A . Y. 0 4 - 0 5 & 0 3 - 0 4 (Vimalachal Print & Pack Pvt. Ltd.) Page 6 in CIT vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 324(All) has observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gsl Nova Petrochemicals Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 June, 2016

8. If reasons recorded did not reflect these ingredients then reopening cannot be sustained. On the aspect of necessity to mention the failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment Hon. Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 324(All) has observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nova Petrochemicals Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 July, 2016

8. If reasons recorded did not reflect these ingredients then reopening cannot be sustained. On the aspect of necessity to mention the failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment Hon. Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 324(All) has observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neptune Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Dy.Cit, Circle-5,, Ahmedabad on 28 March, 2017

8. If reasons recorded did not reflect these ingredients then reopening cannot be sustained. On the aspect of necessity to mention the failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment Hon. Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 324(All) has observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next