Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (5.04 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Rajkumar Ashok Pal Singh on 14 August, 1975

Pathik Constructions, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 February, 2015

From these facts it is clear that the assessee firm has received loan from the group company in both the years but the factor is to decide the issue whether it is covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is to prove that whether it was a business transaction. To answer this question, it is very clear from the Finance Agreement submitted by the AR of the appellant that it was a business transaction and the loan was taken for purchasing the land and commission was to be paid on it. Since the land was not sold in the year under consideration, therefore, no commission payment has been shown. Thus, ,it proves that it is clearly a business transaction. To strengthen its view, the AR of the appellant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Courts in case of (i) CIT vs. Rajkumar (318 ITR 462),
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basant Bansal , Alwar vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 April, 2015

(ii) CIT vs. Rajkumar (Delhi High Court) (supra) There was accumulated profit at Rs. 33,42,604/- has been considered to be advanced by the M/s Mangalam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and as such Rs. 33,42,604/- has been considered as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and Shri Roop Bansal. As such ½ of Rs. 33,42,604/- i.e. Rs. 16,71,302/- was added to the income of the assessee as deemed dividend. The ld Assessing Officer further noticed that in case of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. that M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had paid Rs. 80,46,100/- to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as on 04/02/2008, which has been paid back by M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on 25/03/2008. Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop Bansal held 34% and 33% shares of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. respectively and 50% each of M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2007-08. As such Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop Bansal held more than 10% shares in M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. which has given the loan and held more than 20% shares of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. on 4 March, 1997

Before the CIT(A) it was urged by the assessee that the ITO erred in treating income of Rs. 7,40,106, i.e. the sale price of timber less timber sawing charges, as income by way of long term capital gains, but since there was no cost of acquisition incurred for acquiring the timber, which was of spontaneous growth, it, therefore, represented sale of an asset and that the timber sawing charges was incurred in relation to transfer and sale of timber, which did not constitute stock-in-trade or work-in-process. It was contended that since there was no cost of acquisition for the timber, sale of such an asset cannot be treated to be a capital gain. It was urged that the asset sold was self-generated. The CIT(A) distinguished the decisions of various Courts cited before him on facts by stating, "there is absolutely no indication to show that the appellant had not spent even a pie on the growth of trees, which appeared to be quite large in number and which could be sold for such a substantial amount of Rs. 8,90,000. Even assuming that the trees were of spontaneous growth, as held in the High Court decision reported in Province of Bihar vs. Maharaja Pratap Udainath Sahideo of Ratugarh & Anr. Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh vs. CIT H. H. Digverendra Singhji of Bansda vs. CIT and CIT vs. Rajkumar Ashok Pal Singh , the income derived from the sale of forest trees even if of spontaneous growth is not capital receipt and is liable to tax even though there is a exhaustion of capital assets in the shape of valuable and long standing trees.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Ghosh - Full Document

Anurag Jain vs Arvind Jain & Others on 4 June, 2019

71. Accordingly, consequent relief which is available to the plaintiff i.e. rendition of account has also been added in the existing plaint by virtue of cancellation, which is not simple suit for declaration/cancellation but a suit with main prayer for cancellation of documents under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act with consequential relief of rendition of account. Thus, proviso to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 will not come into picture. The judgment cited on this part titled (i) Vinay Krishna - supra (ii) M.K.Rappai - supra and (iii) North DMC v Prashant Narula supra have no factual nearing. This ground seeking rejection of the plaint is therefore, not found to be impressive at all.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1