Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) ... on 27 July, 1971

Tulsyan Vastralaya Pvt. Ltd., Gonda vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 December, 2009

6.5 In the case of CIT vs. Orbital Communication (P) Ltd.[2010] 327 ITR 560 (Delhi), their Lordships of Delhi High Court have held that where [15] substantial evidence was produced by the assessee company to prove creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of the share application, failure to produce creditor is not material and addition to share application money is not sustainable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2),, Baroda vs M/S. Sayaji Hotels Ltd, Vadodara on 22 March, 2023

Reliance was also placed on Commissioner of Income-tax vs Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) P. Ltd. (1973) 90 ITR 373. In that case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana laid down that interest paid by an assessee on account of delay in payment of the provisional demand of tax is not a permissible deduction under s. 36(l)(iii) and s. 37 of the I. T. Act. The learned judges observed that the liability to tax, although arising out of a business activity, could not be said to be a liability related to the assessees' business. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the decision. The case is distinguishable because we are concerned with a particular statutory scheme enacted in ss. 3 and 4 of the Cess Act before us. Our attention has also been invited to Saraya Sugar Mills (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arvind Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 8 June, 1982

7. Coming to the second ground, which is the question actually referred to the Special Bench, Shri Shah at the very outset stated that he is not pressing his claim for deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(m) of the Act, and in our view rightly. He has confined his arguments only on the allowability under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. We have already indicated in the beginning that the question involved in this appeal has already been decided by the two High Courts. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Oriental Carpet (supra) directly took into account an identical claim. That was the case dealing with the claim of interest on delayed payment of tax. Their Lordships rejected the assessce's claim and made the following observations:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Punjab Breweries Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. ... on 25 August, 1998

filed by the assessee. The view of the AO, in other words, was that no evidence had been placed on record to prove that services had been rendered by the Corporate Management Division to the assessee. To the same effect were his observations in respect of the opinion filed by the Chartered Accountants. The AO also sought to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Carpet Mfrs.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanpur Textiles Ltd. on 31 August, 2004

Interest on account of deficiency in payment of advance tax or on account of delay in payment of tax or in the filing of the return of income, on the money borrowed for payment of income-tax, is neither deductible as business expenses under Section 37 nor as interest on borrowings under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, as held in the case of Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 (Bom); Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 751 (Cal); Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 774 (Patna); Mannalal Ratanlal v. CIT [1965] 58 ITR 84 (Cal); CIT v. Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) P. Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 373 (P&H) ; Gopaldas Dahyabhai Lavsi v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 531 (Guj) ; Waldies Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 577 (Cal) ; National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 252 (Cal) ; Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 654 (Bom) ; CIT v. Om Parkash Behl [1981] 132 ITR 342 (P&H) ; CIT v. International Instruments (P.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 April, 1978

17. This court in the case of Mannalal Ratanlal [1965] 58 ITR 84 (Cal) has followed the aforesaid decision of the Patna High Court. The case of Mannalal Ratanlal [1965] 58 ITR84 (Cal) has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mrs. Indumati Ratanlal [1968] 70 ITR 353, by the Punjab High Court in the case of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1972] 86 ITR 577, by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Madhav Pd. Jatia v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 87 ITR 298, and again by the Punjab High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) P. Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 373.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next