Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. on 3 February, 1992

Navlakha Translines,, Pune vs Assessee on 7 August, 2012

21. So far as the reliance of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. reported in 125 ITR 510 we find it was held in the above case that when the assessee has paid an excessive amount to connected persons in a collusive transaction, the department is entitled to ascertain the actual cost. However, in the instant case the transaction is not between connected persons and it has not been proved or brought on record by the lower authorities that it is collusive in nature. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that Vestas RRB India Ltd. or Snowcem had no interest in the reduction of tax liability of the assessee since nothing has been brought to our notice that either Vestas RRB India Ltd. or Snowcem are related to the assessee or they are related to each other.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The A.C.I.T. vs Nahar International Ltd. on 22 April, 2004

Reference to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (supra), is relevant where their Lordships have held that though an assessment for a particular year is final and conclusive between the parties only in relation to the assessment for that year, the decision given in an assessment for an earlier year is not binding either on the assessee or department in a subsequent year. But this rule is subject to limitations and there should be finality and certainty in all litigations including litigation arising out of the Income-tax Act. It has further been held that if a decision has been arrived after a due inquiry, if no fresh facts are placed before the Tribunal giving the later decision, and if the Tribunal during the earlier decision has taken into consideration all the material evidence, then it will not be possible to take a different view than the view taken by the earlier Bench. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, I concur with the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment years 92-93 to 94-95 and the learned President that the interest-free loans to the employees was purely for the purposes of business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitender Kumar Gupta, vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 May, 2015

The Tribunal, vide its order dated 3.8.2012 passed u/s 254(2), held that non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Jaswant Sugar 7 ITA No.3431/Del/2007 Ltd. (supra) and treating the judgment in case of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (supra) as that of the jurisdictional High Court, was a mistake apparent from record. That is how, the original order was recalled on this ground and the instant proceedings have now come up before us for a fresh decision on this aspect of the matter.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitender Kumar Gupta, vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 March, 2007

Here, not going into that controversy because the AO himself has chosen to determine only the value of its assets in view of Explanation 3 to Section 43, we will examine only the question that whether or not the AO was right in determining the actual cost or whether CIT (A) was right in holding that the cost shown by the assessee 15 ITA NO. 3431&4342/DEL/07 A.Y. 2001-02&2002-03 should be adopted. It has already been discussed that cost in the hands of the previous owner was only a sum of Rs.32,91,746/- on which depreciation was also claimed and keeping in view the age of the assets and keeping in view the nature of these assets that value of these cannot increase in the installed shape, we are of the opinion that the AO was right in taking the value at Rs.20 lac which will be the depreciated cost of these assets on which the assessee could claim the depreciation. The CIT (A) was wrong in holding that under Explanation 3 to Section 43, the AO is not authorized to take fair market value, instead, it was to be taken as actual cost which is incurred by the assessee. It has already been discussed that 'actual cost' as per decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (supra) is not actual cost in the hands of the assessee particularly while construing Explanation 3 to Section 43 which is the cost in reality and genuineness which exclude collusive, inflated, deflated or fictitious cost. It has already been discussed that the cost shown to have been incurred by the assessee is inflated and fictitious cost which has no reality. The assessee has not produced any material on record to show that the cost paid by him was genuine cost and the cost in reality. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) in this regard and restore that of AO. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Piccadily Hotels (P) Ltd. on 28 June, 2005

Now, while these factors cannot also be conclusive but if these principles are applied in the instant case, we can come to a conclusion. As already discussed above, the assessee is engaged in running of hotel and cinema hall, he acquired the SCOs and kept them as investment for a long period of nine years before selling of in the relevant years. The CIT(A) also found that the SCOs were acquired by paying advance of Rs. 9 lakhs and the balance was paid in instalments and possession taken over. Also in para 5 above, we have mentioned regarding submissions of the assessee that in the asst. yr. 1994-95 the AO has treated the income from sale of SCOs as capital gain, whereas in the years under appeal he has changed his opinion regarding character of the transactions and also brought it under the head business income. Even on this plea, the assessee finds support that principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings but to deviate from it there should be change in the facts and circumstances, as observed in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. . Therefore, in view of the above discussion and totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to compute the income arising from sale of SCOs under the head capital gain after necessary indexation. We uphold her order and do not find any merit in the common ground raised by the Revenue in all the three appeals. The ground stands rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nahar International Ltd. on 22 July, 2004

Reference to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (supra), is relevant where their Lordships have held that though an assessment for a particular year is final and conclusive between the parties only in relation to the assessment for that year, the decision given in an assessment for an earlier year is not binding either on the assessee or department in a subsequent year. But this rule is subject to limitations and there should be finality and certainty in all litigations including litigation arising out of the Income-tax Act. It has further been held that if a decision has been arrived after a due inquiry, if no fresh facts are placed before the Tribunal giving the later decision, and if the Tribunal during the earlier decision has taken into consideration all the material evidence, then it will not be possible to take a different view than the view taken by the earlier Bench. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, I concur with the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 and the learned President that the interest-free loans to the employees was purely for the purposes of business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next