Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Armour Chemicals Ltd. vs Joint Cit, Spl. Range-6 on 23 July, 2007 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jain Construction Co. And Ors. on 24 September, 1999

10. The learned DR on the other hand, contended that assessee had prepared P&L Account wherein interest had been debited in the normal course and this practice was followed consistently, hence, net profit rate when estimated by the Assessing Officer as compared to the net profit rate of the earlier years, the interest stood duly considered, hence, there was no case for any further deduction. The learned DR further contended that in the case of Jain Construction Co. (supra), only depreciation was involved and in the present case, the depreciation had already been given by the Assessing Officer after the estimation of net profit, hence, this case was not of any further help to the assessee.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 43 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vinod Kumar Bhatia on 12 July, 1994

In respect of the case of Vinod Kumar Bhatia (supra), the learned D.R. contended that in this case the assessee had himself estimated profits and thereafter, the assessee had claimed interest there from along with depreciation which was not the case here because in this case the books of account had been rejected and the estimation had been done by the Assessing Officer after considering all the facts, hence, this case was also distinguishable on facts and, accordingly, it did not help the assessee in any manner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs D.D. Hazare on 13 October, 1993

12. In Ground Nos. 3,4, 5 and 6, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making disallowance under Sections 43B and 40A(3) of the Act after estimation of net profit. The assessing officer made disallowances under Section 43B of the Act on account of Bonus, PF, EPF and interest to financial institutions and also made disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of cash payment made in excess of Rs. 10,000 from the net profit before depreciation. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter into appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessing officer had made disallowance under Section 40A(43) of the Act based upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. D.D. Hazare (1994) 48 ITD 595 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in such circumstances disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act could be made. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also analysed the nature of other disallowances and confirmed the action of Assessing Officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

1. Mrs. Kailash Suneja (C.W. No. 5220 Of ... vs Appropriate Authority And Others. Dr. ... on 17 December, 1997

13. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the assessee, narrated the factual matrix of the case and placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of lndwell Constructions v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 wherein it was held that when the books of account had been rejected and income was estimated then, all deductions under Section 29 of the Act were deemed to have been taken into account while making estimation including the disallowance under Section 40 of the Act. The learned Counsel thereafter drew our attention to the assessment order wherein these disallowances were made after the estimation of the net profit and contended that this amounted to double addition and also net profit rate not stood at thesarae rate at which the assessing officer was estimated the profits.
Delhi High Court Cites 147 - Cited by 291 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Patel Bros. on 7 February, 1966

18. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the assessee, narrated the factual matrix of the case and contended that in assessment year 1992-93, deduction was claimed originally under Section 80-IA, however, deduction under Section 80-1 was allowed in respect of the very same unit, hence, the deduction under Section 80-1 was allowable. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in CIT v. Paul Bros. (1995) 79 Taxman 378 (Bom.).
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 105 - Full Document
1