Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Wimco Seedlings Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 30 March, 2007

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Williamson Financial Services ... on 6 July, 2022

The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench "E" (Third Member) in the case of Wimco Seedlings Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Asst.), Special Range, Moradabad reported in [2007] 107 ITD 267 (Delhi) (TM) has observed that only expenditure which has been proved to have been incurred in relation to the earning of tax-free income, can be disallowed and the section cannot be extended to disallow even expenditure which is assumed to have been 7 I.T.A. Nos.154 to 156/Gau/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 IT.A. No.159/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Williamson Financial Services Limited incurred for the purpose of earning the tax-free income. The word 'incurred' refers to the factual spending of the expenditure in relation to the exempt income and does not refer to a deemed spending or assumed spending for the purpose.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 77 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Nalwa Investments Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 30 November, 2007

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter should be restored to the file of the assessing officer with a direction that he will follow the ratio laid down in the Third Member decision referred to above and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is accordingly set aside and the issue is restored to the file of the assessing officer to be decided by the assessing officer in the light of the directions given above. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before deciding the issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Wimco Seedlings Ltd. on 19 October, 2007

(b) 50 per cent of Bagwala office expenses and 50 per Rs. 24,25,781 cent of R&D expenses claimed in the original return now withdrawn The claim of bad debt as a deduction is a patent error as is clear from the fact that the assessee itself narrated the claim as "bad debt related to agricultural activity written off during the year". The words shown in bold show that the claim was not allowable under the IT Act but was still claimed by the assessee inadvertently. The assessee did not withhold the information that the claim related to the agricultural activity. While computing the income under the normal provisions of the Act, the AO did not mention anything about this claim except saying in general terms that the revised computation was filed when specific queries were raised with regard to the original computation. What those queries were is not known to us. As regards the claim of expenses in the Bagwala office and in respect of R&D, it is seen that for the asst. yr. 1994-95, the Tribunal in its order reported in Wimco Seedlings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del)(TM) 462 : (2007) 107 ITD 267 (Del)(TM) has held that no expenditure other than the expenditure apportioned by the assessee itself can be apportioned against the agricultural income. In the original return filed for the year under appeal, the assessee had claimed deduction against the taxable income of only 50 per cent of the Bagwala office expenses and 50 per cent of the R&D expenses and even this claim was withdrawn in the revised computation, even though such expenses as claimed in the original return were held allowable in the earlier asst. yr. 1994-95. In any case, these are bona fide claims made by the assessee in the original computation but when it realized that the claims were not allowable and were inadvertently claimed as deduction, it filed a revised computation of income withdrawing the claims.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mahesh Chand Gupta, Mathura vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 June, 2009

3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.) relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer and stated that the ld. First Appellate Authority has wrongly deleted the addition in dispute which is contrary to the law and facts on the file and finally he supported the order of the Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee controverted the arguments advanced by the ld. D.R. stating that the assessee is a manufacturer of electric wires and cables and also has income from dividend and interest from GOI tax free savings bonds. He further stated that the assessee has neither incurred any expenditure on dividend income nor on interest income from GOI saving bonds nor has claimed the same. The assessee is maintaining two separate sets of accounts one for the business income and other set for personal income. The dividend income on shares and interest income on GOI tax free savings bonds has been credited in the personal set on which no expenditure has been incurred or claimed. He also drawn our attention towards section 14A of the Act and stated that the same is not applicable in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) as these sub-sections have been brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 wherein the Assessment Year in dispute is 2005-06. Finally he relied upon the order passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority and to support the same he also relied upon the decision of I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Wimco Seedling Limited vs. Dy. CIT reported in (2007) 293 ITR (80) 216 (Del.). He has also filed copy of the said decision along with his brief submissions dated 10.03.2011 and requested that the appeal filed by the Department may be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1