Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (2.88 seconds)
Documents citing Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1979

Goodyear India Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer. (Asstt. Cit V. ... on 31 January, 2000

15. The learned Judicial Member also examined s. 37(1) and observed that the words in bracket "[not being expenditure of the nature prescribed in ss. 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee]" were significant because ss. 30 to 36 have been excluded from s. 37(1) which is treated as residuary section. Considering the above, and decisions in CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. (1976) 102 ITR 803 (Ker), CIT vs. Carborundum Universal Ltd. (1977) 110 ITR 621 (Mad), Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 168 (AP) and Chenab Forest Co. vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K), he held that it was clear that once any expenditure is covered under ss. 30 to 36 that shall not be the subject-matter of allowability under s. 37(1). Since the claim of the assessee was covered under s. 35AB, as held by him, the same had to be disposed of under s. 35AB and not under s. 37(1).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 94 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

Hiralal Maganlal And Co. vs Dcit, Sr-52 on 20 September, 2004

19. It is not in dispute that Shri Prataprai Sanghvi, partner in the assessee-firm was competent to make the statement in question Under Section 132(4) on behalf of the assessee-firm. Besides, in Nathmal Peshormal v. CIT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the assessee's SLP against the order dated 11.1.1989 of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No. 232 of 1988 whereby the High Court rejected the assessee's reference application on the question whether the addition of the value of some gold to the income of the assessee-firm was justified when, pursuant to a search and seizure, a quantity of gold was seized from the residence of the partners of the assessee-firm, which carried on the business in the manufacture and sale of gold and silver jewellery, and the ladies of the house Claimed that the gold belonged to them but one partner said that some of the gold belonged to the business and the value of the part of the gold was added back to the income of the firm. The case of the assessee before us is covered by the said principle.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 27 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Raasi Cements Ltd. on 29 July, 1993

Similarly, the issue was also examined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 168 (FB), in which the replacement of old diesel engine by a new one did not bring any new asset into existence, in the opinion of the Honourable High Court. The expenditure incurred, therefore, was held to be in the nature of current repairs and hence admissible. Respectfully following the judicial precedents adverted to above, we are of the view that the CIT (Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 39 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Dcit (Assts), Spl. Range vs Shri Dhanalakshmi Cotton And Rice Mills ... on 29 November, 2002

Under the circumstances mentioned above the AO treated the expenditure incurred as capital in nature and added to the income. However, on such addition he allowed depreciation. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), relying on the judgment of the A.P. High Court in the case of Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. v. CIT 122 ITR 168, held that:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dy. Cit vs Shanti Bhawan Lodge on 25 October, 2002

It has also been contended that the term 'current repairs' as envisaged by section 31 does not suggest any distinction between revenue or capital in nature of expenditure. It has been contended that the only requirement for allowance of expenditure is that the repair/renewal should not result in any increase of production capacity or the capacity of the hotel. It has been contended that the condition regarding the expenditure to be of revenue nature and not of capital nature applies only when the expenditure is claimed as deduction under section 37(1). Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 168 (AP), CIT v. Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 523 (Bom) and Asstt. CIT v. Dyer's Stone Lime Co. (P) Ltd. (1982) 136 ITR 8 (Del) have been referred to in support.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next