Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)
Liltolier Interior Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 March, 2006 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.L. Agroproducts Pvt. Ltd. on 20 December, 1990

In addition to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Additional CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1984) 157 ITR 822 (Del); Madras High Court in CIT vs. Late G D Naidu (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Mad); and Calcutta High Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 496 (Cal), where it has been held that by merely making a claim for expenditure the assessee 16 cannot be held to have concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars, recently the Supreme Court has taken the view in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd., cited supra, that the making of an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof if the information given in the return is not found to be incorrect, and in our humble opinion the present case falls within the ratio laid down in all these judgments. As in the case before the Supreme Court, in the present case also there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in connection with the boat operating expenses and depreciation on the boat were incorrect or erroneous or false. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income and that such a claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 34 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 August, 1998

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the owner of the Litolier building was in receipt of rent from the property under leave and license agreements which is assessable under the head "Income from house property", whereas the assessee was assessable on the maintenance charges received from the two tenants of the building as business receipts since it has undertaken the activity of maintaining the Litolier building. Thus, the nature of the income received by the assessee and the owner of the building is distinct and so is the nature of the claim for expenditure. It was submitted by him that the expenditure was allowable as business 5 expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. Attention was also drawn to the amenities and service agreements compiled in the Paper Book, which clearly imposed an obligation on the assessee to render services in connection with the maintenance of the building and particular attention in this connection was drawn to clause 4 of the agreement dated 5th September 2000, where the services to be provided by the assessee were listed. Our attention was drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 155 ITR 306 (Bom) and the orders of the Delhi and Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal in Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Additional CIT (1999) 69 ITD 69 (Del) and DCIT vs. Mrs Irene D'Souza (2006) 6 SOT 86 (Bang) respectively.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 73 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

11. We now take up Cross Objection No. 86/Mum/2010 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. There is a delay of almost 32 months in the filing of the cross objection. In support of the application for condonation of the delay, an affidavit from Vikram Mittal, Director of the assessee, has been filed. It is stated therein that the work relating to the filing of the cross objection was given to one Santosh Bhoir as soon as the grounds of appeal filed by the Department were received on 4th August 2007, but he failed to inter-act 9 with the Chartered Accountants in the matter of filing the Cross Objections. He has also left the company and it was only when the assessee's Advocate advised the assessee to file the cross objections, that they were filed on 12th April 2010, which has entailed a delay of 31 months and 12 days. It is prayed that the delay is due to negligence on the part of the assessee's employee and it was not deliberate and hence should be condoned. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Ors (1987)167 ITR 471 (SC) and Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC) are relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001

11. We now take up Cross Objection No. 86/Mum/2010 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. There is a delay of almost 32 months in the filing of the cross objection. In support of the application for condonation of the delay, an affidavit from Vikram Mittal, Director of the assessee, has been filed. It is stated therein that the work relating to the filing of the cross objection was given to one Santosh Bhoir as soon as the grounds of appeal filed by the Department were received on 4th August 2007, but he failed to inter-act 9 with the Chartered Accountants in the matter of filing the Cross Objections. He has also left the company and it was only when the assessee's Advocate advised the assessee to file the cross objections, that they were filed on 12th April 2010, which has entailed a delay of 31 months and 12 days. It is prayed that the delay is due to negligence on the part of the assessee's employee and it was not deliberate and hence should be condoned. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Ors (1987)167 ITR 471 (SC) and Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC) are relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 655 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. Ltd. on 6 January, 1984

In addition to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Additional CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1984) 157 ITR 822 (Del); Madras High Court in CIT vs. Late G D Naidu (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Mad); and Calcutta High Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 496 (Cal), where it has been held that by merely making a claim for expenditure the assessee 16 cannot be held to have concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars, recently the Supreme Court has taken the view in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd., cited supra, that the making of an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof if the information given in the return is not found to be incorrect, and in our humble opinion the present case falls within the ratio laid down in all these judgments. As in the case before the Supreme Court, in the present case also there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in connection with the boat operating expenses and depreciation on the boat were incorrect or erroneous or false. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income and that such a claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Late G.D. Naidu And Ors. (By Lrs. G.D. ... on 28 November, 1985

In addition to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Additional CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1984) 157 ITR 822 (Del); Madras High Court in CIT vs. Late G D Naidu (1987) 165 ITR 63 (Mad); and Calcutta High Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 496 (Cal), where it has been held that by merely making a claim for expenditure the assessee 16 cannot be held to have concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars, recently the Supreme Court has taken the view in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd., cited supra, that the making of an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof if the information given in the return is not found to be incorrect, and in our humble opinion the present case falls within the ratio laid down in all these judgments. As in the case before the Supreme Court, in the present case also there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in connection with the boat operating expenses and depreciation on the boat were incorrect or erroneous or false. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income and that such a claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 87 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd., Bombay vs C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1979

20. The first two grounds relate to the boat operating expenses of Rs.4,82,,898/- and boat depreciation of Rs.7,32,295/-. The arguments of the assessee to justify the allowance of the above are the same in this year as in the earlier year. In the earlier year we have refused to admit the assessee's cross objection on the ground of delay. However, we have noted the assessee's justification for claiming the expenses and depreciation relating to the boat while deciding the assessee's appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) in respect of the assessment year 2003-04. We do not see how the expenses can be held allowable against the income received by the assessee by way of service charges from the tenants occupying Litolier building. The assessee's business is to maintain the building and we have earlier listed out the assessee's duties in this regard for which the service charges are received. The expenses on operating the boat and the depreciation thereon, in our humble opinion, cannot be considered as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the aforesaid business of the assessee. It has been stated before us that the expenditure was incurred voluntarily on grounds of commercial expediency and was therefore allowable as per the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J David & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC). Having given careful consideration to the argument, we find that it is not acceptable. The assessee is not the owner of the building deriving rental income from the tenants in which case it was perhaps possible to say that the assessee was required to maintain close or cordial relations with the 18 tenants so as to avoid any litigation with them. Our assessee is engaged only in the maintenance of the building and even though it is still open to say that even in such a business it was necessary to maintain cordial relations with the tenants, it would be somewhat far fetched or remote to say that those tenants needed to be entertained by the assessee by letting them use the boat owned by the assessee for entertainment purposes. It is true that it is none of our business to dictate as to how the assessee's business should be conducted and whom he should entertain or not, but still the impugned expenditure does not seem to us to be dictated even by commercial expediency. As found by the Assessing Officer it is not part of the assessee's obligations to permit the tenants to use the boat free of charges. In these circumstances we are unable to hold that the Departmental authorities were not correct in disallowing the claim. We confirm their order and dismiss the grounds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 337 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Sayaji Iron And Engg. Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 July, 2001

22. As regards Ground No.5, which is directed against the disallowance of motor car expenses of Rs.2,01,789/- and depreciation of Rs.95,159/- on motor cars, it has been held by the Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj) that there can be no personal user of the motor cars by a company since it is only a juristic entity. Following with respect the aforesaid judgment, we delete the disallowance. We also find that full details of the 19 expenses are given at page 32 of the Paper Book. The ground is thus allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 221 - A R Dave - Full Document
1   2 Next