Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (5.36 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg) Co. Ltd. on 3 November, 1998

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Frontline Capital Services Ltd. on 30 June, 2005

12. We have considered the rival submissions. We do not see force in the argument of the assessee that there must be suggestion of tax avoidance scheme before the provisions of Explanation to Section 73 may be invoked. Reliance in that respect has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Ors. (supra). In that judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that if the language is plain and unambiguous one can only look fairly at the language used and interpret it to give effect to the legislative intention. It is well-settled position in law that rules of interpretation can be put into service only where the language of the statute is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Gulati Saree Centre vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 August, 1999

We also feel that the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Wvg. Co. Ltd. (supra) also supports the assessee's case that the loss is allowable when it was written off by the assessee, after rejection by the insurance company. We may mention that the case law relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is distinguishable on facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Marmon Food & Beverage Technologies ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), ... on 14 December, 2017

2.11.The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in failing to consider the acknowledgement issued by the Development Commissioner, Cochin, SEZ to the effect that the Appellant exported computer software. 2.12. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in failing to appreciate that the provisions of Section l0B being beneficial provisions require to be liberally interpreted so as to achieve the object for which the said Section has been enacted and he could not have denied the benefit expressly made available by introducing artificial conditions therein, as set out in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC) and CIT v Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd [1992] 196 ITR 149 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shri Sharad Sitaram Bhinge [Huf], Pune vs Ito Wd - 5[4] Pune, Pune on 1 February, 2017

6. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He noted that the assessee had changed the cost of acquisition three times which was clearly to avoid payment of capital gain tax. He observed that the capital gains was worked out at Rs.2,61,560/- in the return of income of the individual, which was with the intention to set off of the business loss. He also observed that while filing the return of income the assessee had worked out the capital gains and not the net consideration for claim of deduction under section 54F and no part of the sale consideration was appropriated towards the acquisition of new asset and only capital gains had been invested in the scheme. Referring to the provisions of section 54F, the Assessing Officer held that what was material for allowing deduction u/s.54F(4) relating to transfer of capital asset was the deposit of 'net consideration' in the capital gain scheme and cost of acquisition was immaterial. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble 6 ITA No.619/PUN/2012 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 149 the Assessing Officer did not entertain the assessee's claim for consideration of cost of the land admeasuring 614 sq.mtrs. utilized for construction of the house. The Assessing Officer observed that in the said case before the Supreme Court, the property had been totally partitioned and rights of the other brothers had got released in favour of one brother as joint owner of the property. However, in assessee's case there was no total partition, nor did there any question of release of rights of other members in the land to the HUF arise. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the assessee are distinguishable. According to the Assessing Officer, as per section 54F, the net consideration was to be invested in the new asset and as such the land already in possession of the HUF could not be said to be a new asset. The Assessing Officer thus came to the conclusion that the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 54F(
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs Dcit, New Delhi on 26 August, 2019

48. We may also point out that to support the case of the AO, the Id. CIT-DR has placed reliance on plethora of decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anand Theatre (supra), CIT Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Mills 196 ITR 149 (SC) and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Moradabad Toll road Co. I/s. ACIT [2014] 52 Taxmann.com 21 [Delhi] to establish that golf course is not a plant and machinery and it is to be categorized as a building and on the other hand, the Id. AR has placed Page | 34 reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corpn. 247 ITR 268 (SC), Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and decision in the case of Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. 61 Taxmann.com 166 (SC) and plethora of decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course is a plant and machinery and it is not a building. Interestingly, no cited decision relied by both the parties are related to golf course. Therefore, facts regarding this issue have to be dealt in respect of golf course of 300 acres land and how it became plant and machinery attracting 25% depreciation. The AO has to examine these details to ascertain the issue between the parties as stated above. We also note that the assessee in its written submissions before the authorities below as well as before the Tribunal has submitted the details of construction on the 300 acres of land converting it into a golf course, but these details have not been submitted before the AO and the AO could not get an opportunity to verify and examine the same. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this issue requires detailed verification and examination at the end of the AO after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without being prejudiced from the earlier assessment and first appellate order. Needless to say that the AO would examine all material facts on this issue and after considering the mandate of the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the ration of decisions relied upon by both the parties shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next