Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 140 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning ... on 18 April, 1995

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., ... vs Acit, Jaipur on 30 May, 2017

In the absence of operation, the issue of payment of such damages would not arise. It is only when the wind mill becomes operational on short fall on the production such payment is made. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prakash Oils Ltd. (supra) held that the payment made as an liquidated damages for not honouring the contract for sale of oil and deoiled cake, such income is directly derived from industrial undertaking, hence eligible deduction u/s 80IA. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that such income is not derive from the business of the undertaking. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IA on this receipt. This ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 50 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf Huf, Pune vs Ito Wd 14(2)2, Mumbai on 4 April, 2018

(iii) the income tax credentials of the donor, viz. Sh. Arun Jatia, the credentials of which all documentary evidence had not been controverted or even doubted by the lower authorities. We have perused the records and are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donor, viz. Sh. Arun Jatia to the satisfaction of the A.O by failing to produce the specific documents which were called for by him during the course of set aside assessment proceedings, viz. (i) bank statement of the donor from which the funds were transferred to the assessee; and (ii) the proof of the source of income of the donor, viz. Sh. Arun Jatia, therefore, the A.O rejected the claim of the assessee and added the aforesaid amount as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. We are of the considered view that the failure on the part of the assessee to adduce necessary documentary evidence as was called for by the A.O to prove the creditworthiness of the donor to his satisfaction, would though in the backdrop of such unproved claim of the assessee justify addition of the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68, but however, in the absence of any material having been placed on record by the A.O on the basis of which the aforesaid claim of the assessee could be disproved, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed in the hands of the assessee. We find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Upendra V. Mithani [ITA (L) No. 1860 of 2009], dated 05.08.2009, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court being of the view that unless the claim of the assessee is disproved no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could be imposed, had held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Universal Biomass Energy Private ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), ... on 24 June, 2025

13. On this issue raised by the ld. CIT(A) that in the instant case, no appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order u/s 143(1). We would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arihant Industries Ltd. ITA No. 11/2002 dated 08th March 2002, to submit that the Hon'ble High Court has examined this issue and has observed that the intimation u/s 143(1) is given without prejudice to sub section 2 of section 143(2) which makes the position very clear that even when intimation u/s 143(1) is issued proceeding for assessment u/s 143(3) can be initiated by the issue of notice u/s 143(2). The relevant portion of the High Court order is reproduced for ready reference:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit (International Taxation), ... vs M/S. Express Drilling System Llc, ... on 14 August, 2018

"6. We have heard Ld. A.R. of the assessee and perused the relevant records, especially the impugned order. We find that the position of law as it stands till the year 2011-12 as interpreted by various Courts support the 3 ITA No. 6673/Del/2016 contention of the Assessee that interest on advance tax was not payable. Apart from the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oil Limited (ITA No. 56 of 2007), the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GE Packaged Power Inc. (ITA No. 353/2014) and connected matters - TS-27-HC-2015 (DEL) also is in favour of the assessee in which it has been held that the primary liability of deducting tax (for the period concerned, since the law has undergone a change after the Finance Act, 2012) was that of the payer. The payer would be an assessee in default, on failure to discharge the obligation to deduct tax, under section 201 of the Act and no interest was leviable on the assesses under section 234B of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the above precedent, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 6.1 Following the consistent view as taken in assessment year 2010-11, as aforesaid, the similar ground raised in assessment year 2011-12 is also decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Associated Engineering Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 27 September, 1996

In Asstt. CIT vs. Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning Factory (supra) to which both of us were parties, the assessee had filed revised return under the Amnesty Scheme disclosing additional income of Rs. 2,50,000 and till filing of revised return, the Revenue authorities had made no inquiries to show that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was concealed income. In that case no doubt search had been carried out on 6th Jan., 1984, almost two years prior to the filing of the return by the assessee but no action whatsoever had been taken by the Revenue to go into the facts of the case and unearth the concealed income which they thought to have been concealed by the assessee firm. It was further noted that merely for the reasons that the Accountant of the firm had made statement with reference to a particular paper that it reflected the unaccounted income of the firm, and which had, there and then, simultaneously at a different premises been denied/rejected by the partner, it could in noway be said that the offer by the firm under the Amnesty Scheme of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was made after the detection. In the case before us as is evident from the facts narrated above, after the publication of the news item in the Gujarat paper "Gujarat Samachar" the Revenue authorities carried out extensive inquiries and found material to show that there had been concealment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Associated Engineering Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 September, 1996

In Asstt. CIT vs. Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning Factory (supra) to which both of us were parties, the assessee had filed revised return under the Amnesty Scheme disclosing additional income of Rs. 2,50,000 and till filing of revised return, the Revenue authorities had made no inquiries to show that the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was concealed income. In that case no doubt search had been carried out on 6th Jan., 1984, almost two years prior to the filing of the return by the assessee but no action whatsoever had been taken by the Revenue to go into the facts of the case and unearth the concealed income which they thought to have been concealed by the assessee firm. It was further noted that merely for the reasons that the Accountant of the firm had made statement with reference to a particular paper that it reflected the unaccounted income of the firm, and which had, there and then, simultaneously at a different premises been denied/rejected by the partner, it could in noway be said that the offer by the firm under the Amnesty Scheme of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was made after the detection. In the case before us as is evident from the facts narrated above, after the publication of the news item in the Gujarat paper "Gujarat Samachar" the Revenue authorities carried out extensive inquiries and found material to show that there had been concealment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jayantilal Tribhovandas. on 31 August, 1995

In Asstt. CIT vs. Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, it has been held by this Tribunal that mere admission of a partner who happens to be a partner of other firms also as regards the transactions mentioned in the diary seized during the course of search of his premises, cannot bind the assessee-firm and binds the partner individually and no addition can be made in the hands of the firm on the basis of such admission. In the case before us the search was admittedly at the residence of one of the partners, viz., Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas and during the course of search statement of the son of the partner, viz., Shri Jayantilal was recorded which cannot bind the assessee firm though it may bind the son of the partner. In view of the above, we agree with the learned CIT(A) that the assessees case is covered under the answer to question No. 7 of the CBDT Circular No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986 reproduced at page 2 above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next