Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (1.14 seconds)

Medicare Investments Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 November, 2007

15. The learned Departmental Representative contended that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. v. By. CIT (supra) rendered relying on the doctrine of merger in any case is applicable only to the extent so far as question of law is concerned. As regards question of fact is concerned, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court does not seem to have expressed any particular opinion.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jackson Engineers Ltd. on 23 December, 2009

"12. Precisely, this very issue came up for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 402 (Guj). That was also a case where interest was received by the assessee from the debtors for late payment of the sale proceeds and the question was as to whether this interest can be treated as the income derived from the business for the purpose of Section 80-I of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sutlej Motors Ltd. on 2 March, 2007

Besides, the decision of the Tribunal, Special Bench, in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (supra) is directly on the issue wherein it has been held that interest on FDRs does not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA. The only point made by the learned Authorised Representative is that while deciding the above cases, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has not been considered.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 16 February, 2016

In the case of Kungendi Industrial Works P. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 540 (AP) wherein similar provisions of section 192(2) of the Act was considered and it was held that the increase in the value of the asset was substantial and out of the proportion to the WDV in the hands of the previous owner and the reasons advanced for the change-over did not justify the increase in value of the assets.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.,, Mumbai vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 6 October, 2023

23.1. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT DR Sri Aarsi Prasad has mainly relied upon the findings of the AO in the Assessment Order, whereas the Ld. Senior Counsel Sri S.N. Soparkar appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently relied upon the order of CIT(A) as well as ITAT in the case of M/s Sun Pharma Industries, wherein the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is followed. It is undisputed fact that during the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB/80IE in respect of interest received from M/s. Aditya Medisales Ltd. and others being interest due on overdue payments outstanding as a result of trading liability. Similar issue was decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Amritsar in the case of erstwhile firm M/s Sun Pharma Industries (now merged with the assessee company) for AY 2005-06 to 2009-10, which was subsequently followed in AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 wherein following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 155 Taxman 330 and decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rane Ltd. 238 ITR 377 (Mad.) wherein it has been held that interest received by the assessee from its trade debtor towards late payment of sale consideration is not required to be excluded from the profit of industrial undertaking for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s.80IB/80IE as the same is income derived from business of I.T.A Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Krishna Verma vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 March, 2007

Ltd., (supra) wherein it was held that jurisdiction always emanates directly and immediately from the law; it is a power which nobody on whom the law has not conferred it can exercise. In other words, "jurisdiction" has reference to the power of the Court ro Tribunal over the subject-matter, over the res or property in contest, and to the authority of the Court to render the judgment or decree it assumes to make. It is in this sense that the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette confers jurisdiction on the competent authority to take proceedings for acquisition of immovable properties under Chapter XX-A of the Act. The service of notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 269D upon the transferor and transferee meets the requirement of natural justice so that they may file objections in writing against the action which is proposed to be taken, namely for acquisition of property. Any error or mistake committed in the service of the notice does not in any manner affect the jurisdiction conferred upon the competent authority to take proceedings for acquisition of property. The service of notice prior to the publication in the Official Gazette is merely an irregularity committed during the course of the proceedings and cannot have the effect of nullifying the entire proceedings which are validly commenced by publication in the Official Gazette. In fact, no prejudice is occasional to the transferor or transferee by service upon them of the notice prior to the publication in the Gazette. We are, therefore, of the opinion that prior service of notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 269D is at best an irregularity but it cannot have the effect of rendering the proceedings either illegal or without jurisdiction. Hence, it was his submission that this case also supports his argument that giving of 10 days notice to the assessee for filing his return under Section 158BC(a)(i) was an irregularity which would not make the assessment order framed as null and void.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 115 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nokia Corporation vs Assistant Director Of Income Tax on 29 May, 2007

For attribution it is accepted by all it is not includible. And as sale is not taxable, no part of it is taxable. The interest has no separate legs to stand as it does not fall within Article 12 but is commercial profit, as held by CIT(A). It falls for taxation or out of it, with the income from sale of equipment reference CLT v. Govinda Choudhary & Sons , CIT v. B.N. Aggarwal & Co. , Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT . The issue remains alive only in the restricted sense that if in an appeal by the Department the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to accept that sale of equipment is liable to tax in India, then the vendor financing will be added thereto.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Dy. Cit vs Lyka Labs Ltd. on 23 November, 2007

8. The learned Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) and therefore, the same need not be repeated. However, he has also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of PL. Chemical Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 86 ITD 46 as well as the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A.S. Wardekar 283 ITR 432. On the other hand, the learned D.R. has also reiterated the reasonings given by the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) and therefore, the same need not be repeated. However, it has been submitted by him that in the case of USV, the amount paid to the assessee has been held to be the Revenue expenditure by the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of USV is reported as 106 TTJ 535.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next