Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Purshottam G Budhwani, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 21 October, 2015 cites

M/S. Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 December, 1997

"reliance is placed on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Maddi "Venkatraman and Co. P.L. vs. CIT 229 ITR 534 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that where the entire business of the assessee is illegal and that the income is sought to be taxed by the ITO then the expenditure incurred in the illegal activities will also have to be allowed as deductions. In my case you have mentioned that entire modus operandi of making multiple IPO applications is illegal and at the same time you have taxed the income earned from the said activity, I respectfully submit that expenditure incurred to earn that income from illegal activities shall be allowed as deductions and only net income shall be taxed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010

7.1 For the reasons stated therein, it is held in the quantum appellate order that the amounts written off by the creditor is the income of the appellant in terms of section 41(1) of the Act. However, it is seen that the appellant had not concealed any particulars of income and therefore the same cannot be termed as concealment of income within the meaning of section 271 (1)( c) of the Act. It is also apparent that the issue is a debatable one. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby held that penalty u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act is not warranted in respect of this addition. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [322 ITR 158](2010). Therefore, the penalty levied on this issue is hereby deleted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1723 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1