Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd., ... vs Acit, Central Circle - I, Lucknow, ... on 31 May, 2019
cites
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat-I, ... vs Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad on 23 January, 1996
8.2. He submitted that in decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of CIT vs Sh.Arbuda Mills Ltd (supra), the issue that was
considered by Ld.CIT in Sec. 263 proceedings were accepted by
Ld.AO in assessment proceedings and no disallowances were made.
He thus submitted that fact before Hon'ble Supreme Court is
distinguishable with that of facts in case of present assessee.
8.3. Ld.Counsel further submitted that all the other decisions relied
upon by Ld. CIT DR are distinguishable on facts.
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax . on 19 February, 2014
10.3. We have carefully considered argument of Ld.CIT DR and
are not able to convince ourselves, for the reason that, as per facts
in paragraph 3 of order passed by Hon'ble High Court in case of
BSES Rajani Power Ltd., vs Pr.CIT (supra) related to depreciation,
wherein issue was regarding nonconsideration of larger claim for
Rs.29,89,300,000/- as depreciation vis-a-vis consideration of only
a part of it, being Rs.6,44,81,091/- by Ld.AO, who did not go into
the issue with respect of whole amount, and therefore was in error,
that could be corrected under section 263 of the Act. Facts therein
shows that Ld.AO made disallowance of Rs.6,44,81,091/-, being
depreciation capitalised for reinstalling fixed assets. Addition was
challenged by assessee before Ld.CIT(A), who decided the issue with
respect to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.66,27,782/- on
capitalisation of installation cost of fixed assets.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 14 July, 2017
ITA 607/Alld/2000 AY 1995-96
Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Lucknow
CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC)
BSESE Rajdhani power Ltd vs DCIT reported in 339 ITR 228
(Del)
CIT vs Rathee Lal Bacharilal and Sons reported in (2006) 153
Taxmann 86 (BOM)
CIT vs Panna Knitting Industries reported in (2002) 123
Taxmann 216 (Gujarat)
CIT vs Mill Stones Pvt. Ltd (2002) 120 taxman 859 (Madras)
Aditi Technologies Pvt.Ltd vs ITO reported in (2014) 47
taxman.com 166 (BANG-Trib)
Pragati Financial Management Pvt.Ltd vs CIT reported in 82
Taxmann.com 12 (Calcutta)
7.3.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(2) ... vs Hira Industries Ltd. 557A, 76 ... on 1 May, 2019
ITA 607/Alld/2000 AY 1995-96
Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Lucknow
CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC)
BSESE Rajdhani power Ltd vs DCIT reported in 339 ITR 228
(Del)
CIT vs Rathee Lal Bacharilal and Sons reported in (2006) 153
Taxmann 86 (BOM)
CIT vs Panna Knitting Industries reported in (2002) 123
Taxmann 216 (Gujarat)
CIT vs Mill Stones Pvt. Ltd (2002) 120 taxman 859 (Madras)
Aditi Technologies Pvt.Ltd vs ITO reported in (2014) 47
taxman.com 166 (BANG-Trib)
Pragati Financial Management Pvt.Ltd vs CIT reported in 82
Taxmann.com 12 (Calcutta)
7.3.
M/S. Kirtiman Cements And Packaging ... vs Acit, Karnal on 15 May, 2018
Marico Industries Ltd vs ACIT reported in (2008) 115 TTJ 497
Sonal Garments vs DCIT reported in (2005) 95 ITD 363
CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Work Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009) 182
Taxman 183 (GUJ)
6.6. Ld.Counsel submitted that Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal
in assessee's own case for assessment year 1994-95 in ITA No.
509/ALL/1999, on identical issue held order passed under section
263 to be bad in law and void ab initio. He submitted that issue
that was considered by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal was
similar to present issue under consideration. He placed reliance
upon said order of this Tribunal which is placed at page 12-109 of
paper book. Ld.Counsel submitted that, against order passed by
this Tribunal, revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in ITA No. 112/2000. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, vide
order dated 19/10/16 dismissed revenue's appeal.
6.7. He thus submitted that liability of interest provided and
claimed by assessee has been subject matter of appeal before Ld.
CIT (A), Lucknow as Assessing Officer had disallowed substantial
portion of interest claimed by assessee as an expenditure on
accrual basis as per accounts and return filed. And therefore in
light of Explanation (c) to section 263, a reconsideration of 'interest'
provision made by assessee, is beyond ambit and scope of
provisions of section 263 of the Act, as the same was under
M/S. Pragati Financial Management Pvt. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer - ... on 10 January, 2017
ITA 607/Alld/2000 AY 1995-96
Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Lucknow
CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC)
BSESE Rajdhani power Ltd vs DCIT reported in 339 ITR 228
(Del)
CIT vs Rathee Lal Bacharilal and Sons reported in (2006) 153
Taxmann 86 (BOM)
CIT vs Panna Knitting Industries reported in (2002) 123
Taxmann 216 (Gujarat)
CIT vs Mill Stones Pvt. Ltd (2002) 120 taxman 859 (Madras)
Aditi Technologies Pvt.Ltd vs ITO reported in (2014) 47
taxman.com 166 (BANG-Trib)
Pragati Financial Management Pvt.Ltd vs CIT reported in 82
Taxmann.com 12 (Calcutta)
7.3.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Aruna Sizing Mills on 18 December, 1979
"15.........As far as the 1st aspect with respect to exercise of power
under section 263 is concerned, the issue stands concluded, in the
light of the amendment w.e.f. 1989 by insertion of explanation (c) to
section 263 (1). The nonconsideration of the largest claim for rupees
298.93 crores as depreciation and the consideration of only a part of
it (Rs.6,44,81,091/-) by the assessing officer, who did not go into the
issue with respect to the whole amount, was an error, that could be
corrected under section 263. CIT vs Aruba Mills (1998) 231 ITR 50
(SC) is decisive, in that the provision of section 263 (1) explanation (c)
was introduced to cater to precisely this kind of mischief."