Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.B. Stockholding Pvt. ... on 23 April, 2015

Ramesh Premji Shah, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... on 9 January, 2023

Therefore, by applying the ratio of Hon'ble 16 ITA No.1985/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramesh Premji Shah Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Damodran as well as CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chamanbhai and Associated Banking Corporation Vs. CIT (supra) and as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M. B. Stockholding (supra), we uphold the contention of the Ld AR of the assessee as discussed supra and allow the appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sms Tolls And Developers,Nagpur vs Ito, Ward 1(5), Nagpur on 18 November, 2024

In the light of the judicial precedent laid by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M. B. Stockholding (P) Ltd.(supra), and since no decision of jurisdictional High Court was cited in support of impugned action of Ld CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, while determining the deemed dividend, the AO/Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken into consideration the accumulated profit as on 31.03.2011 i.e., loss/(-) of Rs.74,80,633/- and not accumulated profit adopted as on 31.03.2012 (Rs.3.46 crores). Therefore, no addition was possible u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts of the case and thus the assessee succeeds. And consequently, we direct the deletion of of Rs Rs.3,41,96,270/-."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur on 28 November, 2023

The Court after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (supra) and that of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (supra) held that the assessee has been consistently following one of the recognised methods of accounting that is project completion method for computation of income and in the absence of any prohibition or restriction under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. For doing so it cannot be held that approach of the CIT(A) and the tribunal was erroneous or illegal in any manner so as to call for interference by Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, Raipur on 28 November, 2023

The Court after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (supra) and that of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (supra) held that the assessee has been consistently following one of the recognised methods of accounting that is project completion method for computation of income and in the absence of any prohibition or restriction under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. For doing so it cannot be held that approach of the CIT(A) and the tribunal was erroneous or illegal in any manner so as to call for interference by Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner ... vs Smt. Chhaya Valmik Nikhade,Late Shri ... on 7 June, 2019

17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises before us for adjudication is against the addition made u/s.2(22)(e) 9 ITA No.1743/PUN/2014 ITA No.1804/PUN/2014 of the Act. The assessee's case is that no such addition is warranted as the accumulated profits at the start of the year was NIL in hands of the lender company. It was also pleaded that current year's profits of the lender company have to be excluded for computing the accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We find that the said issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M.B. Stockholding (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Shravan Choudhary, Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 7 August, 2019

Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT ITA No. 778/JP/2015 dated 03.10.2016. PCIT vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (DB IT Appeal No. 168/2016 dated 29.09.2016 (Rajasthan HC) PCIT vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (DB IT Appeal No. 46/2017 dated 31.10.2017 (Rajasthan HC) CIT vs. Krishna Behari Goyal (DB IT Appeal No. 137/2016 dated 19.10.2016 (Rajasthan HC) CIT vs. Om Prakash Suri (No.2) 359 ITR 41 (MP) CIT vs. M.B. Stockholding P. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs Sh. Sanjay Passi, New Delhi on 11 July, 2018

- CIT vs. M. B. Stockholding Pvt. Ltd., 2015-TIOL- 1139-HC-AHM ++while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the current profit was not required to be included to be part of accumulated profit. As such, as observed by the Tribunal, the issue is already settled by the SC against the Revenue in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of Ind. Ltd. V Is. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay reported in (1965) Vo1.56 ITR 1 (SC) by which, the view taken that the profit accrues when the books of account are closed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1