Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Kec Holdings Ltd on 12 December, 2014

M/S Berar Finance Ltd.,, Nagpur vs Joint Cit Range 1, Nagpur on 30 June, 2017

8. Having heard the rival contentions and on a perusal of the orders of the authorities below and the case law relied upon by the learned Counsel for assessee, we find that the issue for our adjudication is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in KEC Holdings Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mafatlal Fianance Co. Ltd ( Now Known As ... vs Assessee on 26 August, 2016

14. With respect to category (a) no interest was accrued from them. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. of KEC Holdings Ltd.( ITA No 221 of 2012 dated 11.6.14) wherein the assessee was held justified in not accruing interest in respect of debtors which had become NPA. With respect to category (b), the Ld. Counsel submitted that 10 ITA No.7174 to 7176/MUM/2010 Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04 & ITA 5531/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 & ITA 7177/Mum/2010 Assessment Year: 2007-08 as per the books of account placed on record, no interest was charged from them at any point of time.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raajes Parekh, Chennai vs Acit, Non Corp Circle 10(1), Chennai on 27 September, 2024

b. Considering the intention of the legislation enacting the provisions of section 269SS and 269T by itself cannot be applied to the appellant's case on the ground that there was no intention to generate black money; c. The courts have been treating NBFCs at par with banking companies for income tax purposes [referred CIT V. KEC Holdings Ltd (IT Appeal No.221 of 2012 dated 11.06.2014; CIT Vs Mahila Seva Sahakari Bank Limited (Cooperative Bank) (2017) 395 ITR 324 (Gujrat High Court) and CIT Vs Vasisth Chai Vyapar Limited (NBFC) 410 ITR 244 SC] ; d. No penalty where cash has been deposited into bank though it has been normally received in excess of threshold limits. The Appellant further added that in the instant case, repayment has been made to the Mahindra loan account which has been duly reported by the NBFC recipient. The Court has appreciated the fact that though loan has been obtained by way of cash, since the amount has been subsequently deposited into bank account, such amount has to be regarded as routed through banking channels.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1