Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New ... on 20 August, 2020 cites

Thackers H.P. And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 July, 1981

facts makes it clear that security deposit was given for hiring commercial premises to run business of the assessee. Thus, the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit has occurred during the course of business activities carried on by the assessee-company and hence, it is a case of business loss. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Thackers H.P. & Co. Vs., CIT 134 ITR 21 (M.P.)
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Balaji Chitra Mandir on 23 March, 1984

CIT Vs. Balaii Chitra Mandir reported in 154 ITR 111 (AP) Security deposit forfeited by the assessee due to default in payment of rent by the lessee pursuant to the lease agreement entered into during the course of assessee's business, the termination which did not result in loss of the source producing income is taxable as a revenue receipt."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Punjab Stainless Steel Industries,, vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 February, 2006

advances, the amount of Rs.29,51,517/- is not in the nature of loan. The assessee also submitted that the amount in question have been given out of the amount available to the assessee as on the date of the loan. It was submitted that there is no nexus between the interest bearing funds and advances made by the assessee company. The details of the amount available to assessee and given on loan which also tabulated at pages 12 and 13 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation of assessee that assessee-company had given its own funds on the dates when the advances at Rs.62,73,995/- were given to group companies. Therefore, there is no question of disallowing any interest in question. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition. 5.2. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the A.O. as well as relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs., Commissioner of Income Tax [2011] 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) and Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the 11 ITA.No.2825/Del./2014 M/s. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Abhishek Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 August, 2008

5.3. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to the balance-sheet of the assessee to show that sufficient funds are available to the assessee (PB-32) along with bank statement and submitted that Judgment in the case of Abhishek Industries (supra) have been overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munzal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC) and the issue is now covered by Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 wherein it was held that "presumption is that advances are from own funds." 5.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The A.O. noted in the assessment order that assessee has given interest free loans and advances of Rs.2,39,62,765/- and made disallowance of the impugned interest on the same. This fact is incorrect because assessee has given complete details to show that 12 ITA.No.2825/Del./2014 M/s. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 31 - R Bindal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Large Tax ... vs M/S Reliance Industries Ltd on 2 January, 2019

5.3. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to the balance-sheet of the assessee to show that sufficient funds are available to the assessee (PB-32) along with bank statement and submitted that Judgment in the case of Abhishek Industries (supra) have been overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munzal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC) and the issue is now covered by Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Reliance Industries Ltd., 410 ITR 466 wherein it was held that "presumption is that advances are from own funds." 5.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The A.O. noted in the assessment order that assessee has given interest free loans and advances of Rs.2,39,62,765/- and made disallowance of the impugned interest on the same. This fact is incorrect because assessee has given complete details to show that 12 ITA.No.2825/Del./2014 M/s. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 143 - Full Document
1