Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
M/S. Bhagwati Rice Mills,, Ferozepur vs The Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur on 26 July, 2019 cites

M/S Shree Bhagwati Rice Mills, Khanouri vs Ito, Sunam Hq Sangrur on 27 March, 2018

The Revenue Department refuted the claim of the assessee by submitting that there is bar u/s 124(3) of the Act on raising objection qua jurisdiction after 30 days of serving the statutory notices, however the assessee claimed that bar of 16 ITA No.288/Asr/2014 (A.Y.2010-11) Bhagwati Rice Mills vs. ITO section 124(3) of the Act is not applicable to the instant case. On specific query by the Bench qua transfer of the case from ACIT, Ward-III to ITO, Ward-III(2) u/s. 127 of the Act, the Revenue Department failed to bring on record the order u/s 127 of the Act, however, submitted that the case was transferred as per order dated 27.07.2011 u/s 120 of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. We realized that though it is a debatable issue, however at this juncture we are not inclined to adjudicate the issue because we have already decided the case on merit and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and therefore, for the ends of justice, feel it appropriate not to dwell into the ground No.3 being legal in nature.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006

6.8 While coming to the advance given to the M/s. Rahul Udyog, the assessee also relied upon the certificate issued by M/s Rahul Udyog to the effect that they have business dealing with M/s Bhagwati Rice Mills, Ferozepur Cant. (the assessee herein) and are helping it in purchase of paddy from the market, that's why they keep fund from them. Funds transferred in F.Y.2009-10 were transferred for the same purpose and account was settled before 31st March, 2010. The assessee except showing the certificate, failed to produce any document to 12 ITA No.288/Asr/2014 (A.Y.2010-11) Bhagwati Rice Mills vs. ITO authenticate the business/commercial expediency with M/s. Rahul Udyog, hence, considering the test laid down in the case of S.A Builders (supra), we are not convinced that the assessee had any commercial expediency for paying the security amount to M/s Rahul Udyog and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the Assessee's claim of business expediency qua M/s. Rahul Udyog and thus the decision of the Ld CIT(A) qua addition on account of M/s. Rahul Udyog is sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1104 - M Katju - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Rockman Cycle Industries (P) Ltd. on 17 August, 2007

6.5 Even Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rockman Cycles Industries Ltd. [2009] 176 Taxman 0021 has been consciously held that once a finding of fact has been recorded that the interest paid in respect of advances was for business consideration, then the deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) has to be allowed to the assessee while computing the income not-withstanding advancement of interest free loan to sister-concern. Merely because the interest free loan has been given/advanced to the sister-concern, no such inference can be drawn that the said advances were not for any business connection or purpose.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 17 - R Bindal - Full Document

Dcit 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs Fern Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai on 31 May, 2018

6.9 This is also in controversy as to whether any disallowance of interest u//s 36(1)(iii) can be made for opening balances. Though the Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the disallowance on the opening balances as well by considering the facts that in the previous year the assessee had charged the interest from the debtors in the immediate preceding year, however, as the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of PMS Diesels & Ors. vs. ACIT and Ors. decided on 30/08/2017 (ITA No.114/Asr/2014, & 116 to 118(Asr/2014 [2017] 60 ITR (Trib) 0466 (Amritsar), while relying upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches in the cases of DCIT vs. Infrastructure in ITA No. 198/Asr/2013, Ajay Electronics vs. ITO [2016] 52 ITr (Trib) 332 (Asr) and DCIT Vs. Sadguru Land Finance [2016] 52 ITR (Trib) 182(Asr), has categorically held that on opening balances of advances, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is warranted (refer para No.13 of the order), hence we do not have any hesitation to direct the Assessing officer to delete the disallowance in proportionate to opening balances.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ii vs Bal Kishan Dhawan Huf on 6 September, 2013

Further, the assessee also relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bal Kirshan 14 ITA No.288/Asr/2014 (A.Y.2010-11) Bhagwati Rice Mills vs. ITO Jagdish Chand (ITA No.156 of 1996, decided on 12 July, 2007) (2007) 164 taxmann.com 0459 (P & H), wherein while deciding the reference/substantial question of law as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that various cash payments made to one party on one day were not required to be clubbed and treated as one cash payment and, for that reason, total cash payments exceeding Rs.2,500/- in a day to that party were not to be held as violative of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble Court answered the reference/substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - R Bhalla - Full Document
1   2 Next