Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)

S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006

Further, he submitted that the sister concern filed confirmation letter for advancing the money to them. The assessing officer wanted the cash flow statement from the sister concern regarding the utilisation by the sister concern. He submitted that fund was used by the sister concern for business purpose only and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT & Others (288 ITR 1) (SC) 4 5 fully satisfied. Further, he submitted that the Chartered Accountant has also given certificate regarding utilisation of fund by the sister concern. Hence, he submitted that the addition to be deleted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1104 - M Katju - Full Document

Saravana Stocks Investments (P) Ltd., ... vs Acit Company Circle Vi(1), Chennai on 12 April, 2023

Otherwise in case of a non prized subscriber the amount of 5% would be deducted from the amounts due to him much before the settlement of his account and recognized as income by way of transfer from current liabilities to profit and loss account. Reliance was placed by the Revenue on the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shriram Chits & Investment (P) Ltd., Chennai Vs. ACIT (263 ITR (AT) 65). This decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. The commission remuneration to the Foreman in that case was sought to be recognized on the completion of chit method and had 11 12 nothing to do with the type of additional commission receivable in case of substitution of a subscriber as in this case. The nature of income in both these cases are different. The further commission of 5% receivable from a defaulting subscriber consequent to his removal and subscriber account is recognized as income on the finalization of the issues. This is not an unacceptable proposition. We agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, which are at Para 4.1.1 of this order. In the result, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1