Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Valvaya Capital Private Limited, ... on 8 April, 2026
ITA No. 912 2/Mu m /20 25 ( A .Y.201 5- 16)
Asst. CIT vs. Valvaya Capital Private Limited
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.93 seconds)Documents citing
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Good Food Hotels Va. Pvt. Ltd. on 1 January, 1800
Trimurthi Steels Pvt. Ltd., Uttar ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 March, 2001
Relying on the advice of the special prosecuting counsel it has been
submitted that in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin
Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the effect of decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. (supra) had been nullified and, therefore, the
order may be recalled, as there is mistake apparent from record.
B.D.& P. Hotels (I) P.Ltd `, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 December, 2012
Shamji Manekji Shah, Mumbai vs Dcit Circle-3, Thane on 16 November, 2018
CIT V. VA Trivedi (1998)-l72 ITR 95, a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court observed-that to ascertain the true
character and the nature of the land, it must be seen
whether the land has been put to use for agricultural
purposes for a reasonable span of time prior to the
relevant date and further whether on the relevant date the
land was intended to be put to use for agricultural purpose
for a reasonable span of time in the future.
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Sara Services & Enginners Pvt. ... on 18 January, 2016
The Bombay High Court in 188
ITR 1 in the case of CIT v Good lass Nerolac
Paints Ltd. has held that where on the basis of facts and
materials on record the Tribunal concluded that the payment of
commission was established, and that payments were made for
the purpose of business, inspite of the fact that names and
addresses of recipients were not given, the Tribunal was held
justified in allowing deduction of commissions.
Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 18 January, 2016
The Bombay High Court in 188
ITR 1 in the case of CIT v Good lass Nerolac
Paints Ltd. has held that where on the basis of facts and
materials on record the Tribunal concluded that the payment of
commission was established, and that payments were made for
the purpose of business, inspite of the fact that names and
addresses of recipients were not given, the Tribunal was held
justified in allowing deduction of commissions.
M/S Bosch Limited , Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 May, 2012
7.1 During the course of hearing, the learned DR submitted that
the learned CIT (A) had erred in relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of M.P in the case of CIT v. H.E.G. Ltd (supra), which in turn
relied on the judgment in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT (280 ITR 643-SC) and
CIT v. Good year India Ltd 249 ITR 527 (Del.). It was contended that the
ratio laid down in the above judgments cannot be applied to the instant case
inasmuch as these cases relate to assessment year prior to 1989-90 when
section 244 and not section 244A was in operation. It was, further, argued
that there was a marked difference between these two sections; namely,
section 244 which allows interest on the amount of refund as against section
244A which allows interest on any tax. It was, therefore, argued that in
view of specific language in s.244A, interest can be paid only on the tax
portion in the refund and not on the entire amount of refund.
Maxima Systems Ltd.,, Valsad vs Assessee on 13 September, 2007
9.1 The above provisions have been substituted by the Finance Act,
2002 with effect from 01-04-2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 considering
the amended provisions in Explanation (4) held that "Explanation 4 to
section 271 (1) ( c ) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the
imposition of penalty8 even if the returned income is a loss, is
clarificatory and not substantive. It applies even to assessment
years prior to April 1, 2003, the date on which it was brought into
force. What the Finance Act, 2002, intended was to make the
position explicit which otherwise was implied".
1