Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, ... on 7 March, 2018
"7. It is an admitted fact that there is no change in the facts and the
nature of transactions are identical. We further observe that similar
disallowances were made in the case of other sister concerns of the assessee
viz. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and R.L. Gold Pvt. Ltd. The matter
travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the cases of Rajmal
Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra)
and R.L. Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has
deleted the disallowances u/s. 40A(2) of the Act.
Cheminvest Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi on 2 September, 2015
13. The ground No. 2 of the appeal by the Revenue is directed against
deleting the addition of Rs.92,315/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. It is an
undisputed fact that during the period relevant to assessment year under
appeal, the assessee has not received any income from investment in
agricultural land. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed
that investment of Rs.19,61,012/- made in agricultural land by the
assessee was made in the earlier assessment years and no fresh
investment was made during the period relevant to assessment year under
appeal. The Revenue has not disputed these finding of fact given by the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in
the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has
held that where no exempt income has been earned by the assessee in the
relevant assessment year no disallowance is to be made u/s. 14A.
Commissioner Of Income Tax -I vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ... on 24 March, 2014
Similar
view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of
Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (supra)
and the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (supra). Thus, in view of unrebutted facts
and case laws discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings
of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made
u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly, ground No. 2 raised in the appeal by
Revenue is dismissed.
M/S.Redington (India) Ltd vs The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... on 26 June, 2015
Similar
view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of
Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (supra)
and the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (supra). Thus, in view of unrebutted facts
and case laws discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings
of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made
u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly, ground No. 2 raised in the appeal by
Revenue is dismissed.
R L Gold Pvt. Ltd.,, Jalgaon vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 17 February, 2017
"7. It is an admitted fact that there is no change in the facts and the
nature of transactions are identical. We further observe that similar
disallowances were made in the case of other sister concerns of the assessee
viz. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and R.L. Gold Pvt. Ltd. The matter
travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the cases of Rajmal
Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra)
and R.L. Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has
deleted the disallowances u/s. 40A(2) of the Act.
1