Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lakra Brothers on 24 April, 2006

Rajendrakumar Choudhary, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 30 April, 2012

5. We have carefully perused the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). So far as the assessee's explanation that it has received advance from M/s TVEPL for supply of raw materials, which because of certain adverse conditions and circumstances, the assessee could not supply the same. Subsequently, the assessee arranged to supply the raw materials to M/s TVEPL through M/s Rajendra Kumar & Co. in financial year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 for which the payment was made by him. This is evident from the explanation filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT (A). It is not disputed by any of the authorities that the said transaction was purely for commercial purposes. The department in the grounds of appeal is only aggrieved by the finding of the CIT(A) that the amount was returned by passing journal entries and it was an afterthought. The finding given by the CIT(A) does not seem to be suffer from any infirmity either on facts or in law, which are based on decision of the ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Lakra Bros. reported in 106 TTJ 250 (Chandigarh) and other High Court's decisions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.N.Rajagopal , Kottayam vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 September, 2014

24. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 162 Taxman 170 (Chd). wherein it was observed that the term 'loan' or 'advance' of sec. 2(22)(e) cannot be stretched to include even legitimate transactions carried out in the ordinary course of business where the intention is neither to give a loan or advance or to confer some individual benefits on the shareholders. The Ld. AR submitted that in this decision, the important words in the section are loan or advance and for individual benefit of such shareholder. The loan is something different from imprest money. For a loan there must be a tender, borrower, as well as a contract/agreement between the parties for the return of the loan amount. Similar views, findings, interpretations and observations have been given by various High Courts and Appellate Tribunals in deciding identical or similar issues.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1