Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.37 seconds)
Manoj Shivyag Singh, Mumbai vs Dcit Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai on 27 May, 2020 cites

Casa Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr Cit 6, Mumbai on 13 February, 2019

21. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that the there was a close business connection between the assessee's business and MLPL business and therefore where the assessee had advanced loan it was clearly incidental for carrying out of his business, and the assessee has deep interest in the business of MLPL and thus the amount advanced by way of business experiences was allowable on account of business advances and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of SA Builders Ltd versus CIT (supra). We have noted that the alternative plea of the assessee was not accepted by ld CIT(A) by taking view that no cogent evidence is furnished by the assessee, the assessee not proved that loss occurred in the course of business or it was a trading loss and not capital. It was also held that there is no evidence that advance given to MLPL was utilised for the purpose of business. The assessee has also filed various documentary evidences, which we have recorded in para -3 supra. The assessee has certified that all these evidences were furnished before the lower authorities. We have noted the 20 ITA No. 5375 Mum 2016-Manoj Shivyag Singh alternative plea of business loss was raised for the first time before ld CIT(A) and it was rejected summarily without reference to the aforesaid evidence. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the alternative claim of business loss to the file of assessing officer to consider it afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh the assessing officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and will pass the order in accordance with law. In the result the ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

M/S Karnataka Road Development ... vs Acit, Bangalore on 4 January, 2019

The case law relied by ld. DR for the revenue in Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) is also not helpful to the revenue. In the said case it was held that in order to allow business loss under section 72(1)(i) condition is that assessee should carry on business in year under appeal and it is only against profits of such business that brought forward loss can be set off. Where assessee's profits were assessed under section 41(1) as business income, said profits did not represent profits and gains of any business carried on by assessee and therefore, brought forward business loss was not allowable against profits assessed under section 41(1). However, in the case in hand the assessee throughout the proceedings is claiming that he is carrying his lottery business under two limbs and is 15 ITA No. 5375 Mum 2016-Manoj Shivyag Singh entitled for the deductions of bed debts and other expenses. In the result the Ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Banshidhar Suppliers P.Ltd. vs Income Tax Settlement Commn.. on 27 March, 2014

9. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bansidhar (P) Ltd Vs CIT (supra) while considered the questions of laws; (i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Steel-O-Style Unit of the assessee and the units (a) carrying on business of purchase and sale of cloth (b) processing and manufacturing of colours and chemicals in the name o: M/s. Ban Dyes, did not constitute the same business and hence the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 9,603 paid ' to the workers of Steel-O-Style unit after its closure was not an allowable deduction and (ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activities of steel rolling mill and machinery manufacturing units which were closed in 1961 and 1962 respectively, did not constitute the same business as purchase and sale of cloth and manufacturing of chemicals 11 ITA No. 5375 Mum 2016-Manoj Shivyag Singh and dyes and that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of bad debts of Rs. 34,617 (Rs. 18,772 relating to machinery department and Rs. 15,845 relating to steel rolling mill) against the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68. The Hon'ble High Court held as under;
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Patidar Ginning & Pressing Co. on 26 October, 1999

10. Further, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Patidar Ginning & Pressing Co.(supra), while considering the facts that the assessee-company had a ginning mill. Due to financial difficulties the assessee stopped its activities of ginning and pressing and before commencement of the year engaged itself in purchasing and selling of cotton. However, the selling of cotton was not different from the activity of selling cotton after ginning and pressing. Both the activities were conducted by the same management with the help of the same funds under the same control. The assessee claimed the fact that closure of one business did not affect or lead to closure of other business, was not of much consequence when different activities were carried out by the assessee. The case of the assessee was that all activities constituted one and the same business and the write off of its outstanding dues as bad debts were allowable deductions. The Assessing Officer, disallowed the assessee's claim by taking view (i) that the assessee had stopped its ginning and pressing business and after sometime as new business activities had commenced, and (ii) that suits had been filed for recovery of amount. The Tribunal allowed the deduction claimed on the ground that old business 13 ITA No. 5375 Mum 2016-Manoj Shivyag Singh should be deemed to continue despite its closure, as per the resolution of the board of directors, and that it was enough if the assessee wrote off the debt as bad in its books of account and the assessee need not establish the debt to have become bad.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

M/S. Veecumsees, Madras vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 26 April, 1996

On further appeal by the revenue before High Court, the Hon'ble Court while referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Veecumsees v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 185(SC)/ 86 Taxman 243 , held that the fact that a particular part of the business for which the loan had been obtained had been transferred or closed down, did not alter the fact that the loans, when obtained, had been for the purpose of the assessee's business and dismissed the appeal of revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 77 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next