Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.86 seconds)
Coastal Corporation Limited vs J.C.I.T. on 30 May, 2008 cites

Nectar Beverages P. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 10 February, 2004

7. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the afore-cited case laws and decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and strongly relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nectar Beverages P. Ltd. v. D.C.I.T. (Assessments) 267 ITR 385 he concluded that the claim of deduction towards depreciation is in the nature of expenditure as it reduced the liability of the assessee to pay income tax on such amount and thus upon waiver of the loan liability which was utilized for purchase of the asset, the consequent depreciation claimed thereon can be said to have been recovered by the assessee and therefore provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act are applicable. Accordingly, he brought to tax the impugned loan waiver amount of Rs. 2,24,22,400/- in the assessment completed under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 10 November, 2003

In the present case also, though the assessee has given a note regarding the waiver of principal portion of loan, it was not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the assessee. The Assessing officer has also not dealt with the matter of waiver of principal portion and its taxability in the original assessment proceeding. Hence Explanation 1 to Section 147 will apply to the present case and hence it cannot be said that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable as the Assessing Officer in that case has originally considered the claim of the assessee where as the A.O. in the present case has not considered the present issue and hence it cannot be termed as 'Change of opinion'. The Hon'ble A.P. High Court did not consider explanation (1) to Section 147, as it was not necessary in that case to consider the explanation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next