Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on 30 September, 2002

Ito, Baraut vs Tulsi Ram Bhagwan Dass on 13 June, 2005

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. If the cash amounts allegedly kept inside the almirah has ever been used by the assessee for the purpose of his business, it should have been easy to establish the same with reference to cash flow statements. No such material has been relied upon by the assessee instead the assessee has based his claim on general platitudes that assessee knows his interest better and he should be allowed to run his business in the manner he feels like. In short, the assessee has attempted to base his claim of deduction on arguments as a substitute of material/evidence. The learned CIT(A) clearly erred in taking the assessee's submissions at its face value without there being corresponding material/ evidence. It is firmly established position that the burden to establish business purpose of an expenditure lays on the assessee entirely. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC); Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 634 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 817 (Bom.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Foot On Shoes,, Agra vs Assessee on 8 May, 2013

In order to claim deduction of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, at the relevant point of time and in the light of the judgments in Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC); CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC); Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC); Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [1976] 119 ITR 817 (Bom); CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K), the following conditions should be satisfied: (i)The expenditure in question should not be of the nature described under the specific provisions of sections 30 to 36 and 80VV (section 80VV was omitted with effect from April 1, 1986); (ii)The expenditure should not be of the nature of capital expenditure; (iii)It should not be a personal expenditure; and (iv) The expenditure should have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. It is thus clear that conditions at (i), (ii) and (iii) above are negative conditions whereas the condition at (iv) above is a positive condition. If the expenditure satisfies the negative conditions, it has to satisfy the positive condition in order to be eligible for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, section 37(1) allows deduction of any "expenditure"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit 16(1), Mumbai vs Dish Tv India Ltd, Mumbai on 10 October, 2017

11. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the order of the tax authorities below we noted that the assessee has not earned any exempt dividend income during the impugned assessment year. Since the assessee has not earned any exempt income no disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made in view of the decision in the case of Principal CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. ITA No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016 in which the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) took the view that provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply to the facts of the case as no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, ... vs Addl Cit 8(2), Mumbai on 13 November, 2017

39. So far as ground no.6 in A.Y. 2011-12 is concerned, it is similar to ground no.1 in the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, which relates to disallowance made u/s. 14A. After hearing the rival submissions we noted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the impugned assessment year and therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A. Our view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. 378 ITR 33 (Del) and that of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Principal CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA No. 51/2016 dated 13.10.2016. Respectfully following these decisions, we dismiss ground no.6 taken by the revenue for A.Y. 2011-12.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 58 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, ... vs Dcit 10(2)(2), Mumbai on 27 November, 2017

8. Ground no.6 relates to the deletion of the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the orders of the authorities below. We noted that the assessee has not derived any exempt income during the impugned assessment year. Both the parties agreed that identical issue had arisen in the case of the assessee for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 and whatever view is taken therein shall be applicable to this year also. We find that the Tribunal vide its order of dated 13.11.2017, in the A.Ys 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011- 12 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. 378 ITR 33 (Del) and that of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Principal CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in ITA No. 51/2016 dated 13.10.2016 has confirmed the deletion of the disallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D by the learned CIT(A). Facts and circumstances being similar, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). It is accordingly, upheld and the ground is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dunnima Engineers & Divers Enterprises ... vs Acit - 15(1)(2), Mumbai on 14 June, 2017

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us including the impugned orders and case law cited by the ld.AR. The undisputed facts before us that during the year, the assessee has not received any income by way of dividend and therefore, the settled legal position is that in case there is no exempt income no disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D could be made. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd (supra) has observed and held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next