Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Kg Petrochem Ltd., Jaipur vs Assessee on 14 December, 2015 cites

Cit vs Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. on 28 November, 2007

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Principally the ld CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's adjustment of excise duty on opening stock U/s 145A but full amount has not been allowed by him on the ground that since the excise duty is not included in the closing stock of last year. It is not possible to verify and allow the higher claim of adjustment. The AR of the assessee furnished all the details before the lower authorities at the time of appellate proceedings and at the time of first appeal made before the ITAT thereafter in set aside proceeding, these details were given to the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahavir Alluminum (supra) has held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 89 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 25 January, 1977

Grounds of ITA No. 234/JP/2014 (A.Y. 1999-2000) "1. The ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not directing the A.O. to increase the opening stock by the amount of excise duty of Rs. 16,20,151/- in giving 2 ITA No. 234 & 235/JP/2014 KG Petrochem Ltd. Vs. ACIT effect of section 145A and also not following the direction of Hon'ble ITAT on this issue while setting aside this matter to the Assessing Officer in light of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahaveer Aluminium Ltd. 297 ITR 77.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 105 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Nh Securities Ltd. vs Dcit on 27 July, 2006

He 18 ITA No. 234 & 235/JP/2014 KG Petrochem Ltd. Vs. ACIT further relied on the decision in the case of NH Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT 11 SOT 302 (Trib) (Mum) (2007) wherein it has been held that payment made by the company to this shareholder is proved by the characteristic as other than loan/advance, in other words, the payment is for the purpose of repayment of loan or such other existing liability, the question of Section 2(22)(e) applying, does not arise. The nature of transaction is a dominant factor to decide the case which depends on case to case and of their facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 69 - Full Document
1