Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing J.B. Advani And Co. (P.) Ltd. vs R.D. Shah, Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 22 August, 1968

Dcit Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs Cowtown Land Development P.Ltd, Mumbai on 27 December, 2017

3.5. Assessee defending an employee, etc.-When an employee is prosecuted in respect of transaction in the course of his employment, expenditure incurred in or about his defense is incurred for the protection of the good name of the business and is an allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singh & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dhanrajgiriji Raja on 17 September, 1969

In the decision, J.N. Singh and Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1966] 60 I.T.R. 732 (Punj.), the Punjab High Court has held that the expenses incurred in defending an employee against a criminal prosecution with regard to a transaction carried out in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee can be allowed as permissible deduction. It said that, in the case of an employee, such an expenditure was incurred to protect the good name of the business, the prosecution haying emanated with regard to an act which took place in the ordinary course of business and the expenditure is, therefore, wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business; accordingly, it was held that the deduction was permissible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. In this decision their Lordships made a distinction between expenses incurred in defending an employee against a criminal prosecution and expenses incurred in defending an owner, or director or manager of the assessee-company where a part of the object for incurring the expenditure would be to defend the accused from the possible adverse consequences of a criminal conviction.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

D.D. Shah And Brothers vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 2005

82. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in the case of J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) was considering the meaning of industrial company within the meaning of Section 2(5)(a)(ii) of the Finance Acts, 1966 and 1967, and has distinguished the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of G.A. Renderian's case (supra). Bombay High Court pointed out that the decision of the Calcutta High Court depended on industrial policy given in the Finance Act, 1978, where term 'industrial company' was defined to include one which is engaged in processing of goods which is conspicuous by its absence in the Finance Acts, 1966 and 1967, in defining 'industrial company'.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs Ito 9(2)(1), Mumbai on 18 November, 2016

3.10. Assessee defending an employee, etc.-When an employee is prosecuted in respect of transaction in the course of his employment, expenditure incurred in or about his defence is incurred for the protection of the good name of the business and is an allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singb & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai on 3 October, 2017

Assessee defending an employee, etc.-When an employee is prosecuted in respect of transaction in the course of his employment, expenditure incurred in or about his defence is incurred for the protection of the good name of the business and is an allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singb & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 66 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Vaaya Renewable Energy (Purna) Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 May, 2018

Vaaya Renewable Energy (PURNA) Pvt. Ltd. 2.9. Assessee defending an employee, etc.-When an employee is prosecuted in respect of transaction in the course of his employment, expenditure incurred in or about his defence is incurred for the protection of the good name of the business and is an allowable business expenditure [ J.B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v. CIT & EPT, (1950) 18 ITR 557 (Bom) considered in CIT v. H. Hirjee, (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC), where the correctness of its ultimate decision was not doubted; J.N. Singh & Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT. (1966) 60 ITR 732 (Punj)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kadur Vidhya Pratishtana vs Cit on 4 May, 2006

5. The learned CIT was not convinced with the reasons given above. As per learned Commissioner (Appeals), the explanation for condoning the delay must cover the whole period of delay. Ram Narain Joshiv. Parmeshwar Navab Mehta (1903) ITR 30 Cal. 309, J.B. Advani & Co. (P.) Ltd, v. R.D. Shah, CIT Delhi High Court in the case of M.S. Nulon India Ltd. v. CIT , held that rejection of application for condonation of delay was held justified because the plea that the petitioner could not get proper legal guidance was, on facts, was not valid in view of the finding that the assessee had services of a chartered accountant and also of a tax consultant. An illegal action even if done in bona fide intentions cannot become u legal. It was stated that a couple of trustees were advocates and they are presumed to possess definite knowledge about the necessity to register a deed in time to claim recognition under Section 12A. It was held by Madras High Court that ignorance of law cannot be a sufficient reason.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next