Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 57 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sterling Tools Ltd., New Delhi vs Jcit, Special Range- 8, New Delhi on 20 December, 2019
15. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the
I.T.A. No. 1988/Mum/2024
I.T.A. No. 2323/Mum/2024
16
authorities below. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (Bombay), has held as
under:-
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991
33. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the
authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the status of the said
I.T.A. No. 1988/Mum/2024
I.T.A. No. 2323/Mum/2024
23
property is the same since 2006 and no such addition has been made till
the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, following the rule
of consistency as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC), we do not find any
merit in this addition made by the AO and the same is directed to be
deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
The Finance Act, 2018
Mardia Extrusion Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit- 4(2), Mumbai on 24 June, 2019
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case
and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete
disallowance of cost of construction amounting to
I.T.A. No. 1988/Mum/2024
I.T.A. No. 2323/Mum/2024
3
Rs.4,04,89,652/- pertaining to Project NEST
without appreciating the fact that debit of expenses
in P/L account without offering corresponding
revenue against such expenses violates the
matching concepts as pronounced by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd v/s
JCIT, 2003 126 Taxman 544 & Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the decision rendered in the case of Rakesh Shantilal Mardia
Vs. DCIT [2012] 26 taxmann.com 253?"
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 September, 2016
7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in
law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to direct to tax the common
maintenance charges received amounting to
Rs.44,60,16,088/- as business income instead of Income from
House Property and to delete disallowance of maintenance
I.T.A. No. 1988/Mum/2024
I.T.A. No. 2323/Mum/2024
4
expenses amounting to Rs.34,58,543/- claimed as business
expenditure related to Income from House Property ignoring
the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (HC)
in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta v/s Asstt. Commissioner
of Income Tax dated 27 September, 2016 where Hon'ble High
Court has held that maintenance charges received in relation
to the property should have been included within the ambit
of "rent" and be taxed under the head "Income from house
property?"