Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.86 seconds)
J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kanpur vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 June, 2015 cites

Britannia Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West ... on 5 October, 2005

223. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 1988-89, the matter was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC) and in the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted that Kamla Retreat is being used for business purposes and therefore, following the Tribunal order, 50% expenses were allowed by him. In the present year also, the CIT(A) has allowed deduction to the assessee to the extent of 50% and upheld the disallowance of 50% and therefore, the matter stands covered against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in 1985-86, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1993-94 and 1995-96. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 101 - A Kabir - Full Document

The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd on 19 March, 2002

and Sons Ltd. is not applicable because of difference in facts, we are of the considered opinion that in the present 24 case, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. should be followed in which Hon'ble Apex Court has already considered the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Sundaram Iyengar (T.V.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 82 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Karnataka Small Scale Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore on 3 December, 2002

and Sons Ltd. (supra). In this case, the receipt in question was the amount received by the assessee as deposit from customers in course of business which were originally treated as capital receipt and unclaimed credit balance which were time barred were written back by the assessee to the profit & loss account. Under these facts, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if an amount is received in course of trading transactions, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of capital nature, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes assessee's own money. In the present case, the facts are different. The amount of liability written back by the assessee is not on account of any receipt from customers in course of business and, therefore, this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 63 - R Pal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. ... on 11 October, 2006

For this reason, the Assessing Officer did not allow the claim in the present year. Nothing has been brought on record before us that in appeal of the Revenue the decision of CIT(A) has been reversed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal order in Revenue's appeal for assessment year 86-87 in I.T.A. No.721/Del/93 dated 28/03/2008 is available on page No. 89 to 166 of the paper book and we could not find any such ground raised by the Revenue. Under these facts, now we examine the applicability of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. (supra). As per this judgment, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that even an amount lying credited in MODVAT account 30 at the end of the accounting year is allowable. Since this is not in dispute that the amount of Excise Duty was in fact paid by the assessee in the present year, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of the Revenue is rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 100 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next