Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kerala State Co-Operative Marketing ... on 15 February, 1991
5. Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. 193 ITR 624
wherein it has been held as under :-
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
Ld. CTI(A),
after considering the assessee's submissions and taking note of the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT wherein it
was, interalia , observed that the said decision did not impinge on the power of
Tribunal in entertaining the claim for deduction advanced before it, concluded
in para 6.6. as under :-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd on 15 July, 1986
3891, 4187/Del/2011
63 ITR 232 and CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710,
we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee
and against the revenue and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing
Officer to determine the claim of the assessee on merits."
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Goetze (India) Limited on 9 December, 2013
5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) - ignored the fact that the assesee did not file revised
return to claim the deduction in question and also the fact that the claim
was correctly rejected by the AO applying the ratio of the judgment of
hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. on 7 April, 2008
"6.6. I have analyzed the facts of the present case in the light of the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. and the observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT and the
instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Tax on matters pertaining
to assessments. On consideration, I find that the deduction on account of
penalty was undisputedly allowable to the appellant company as neither
the payment of income tax penalty/other liability is an admissible claim
nor the refund thereof is assessable. Therefore, while the payment of
penalty, if debited to the profit and loss account is to be disallowed and
added back to the computation of total income, the refund thereof if
credited to the P&L A/c, has to be allowed as a deduction in the
computation. Therefore, in my view, it will be unjustified if such apparent
mistake in the assessment order is not rectified in the appeal proceedings.
Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr on 4 September, 1990
"6.6. I have analyzed the facts of the present case in the light of the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. and the observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT and the
instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Tax on matters pertaining
to assessments. On consideration, I find that the deduction on account of
penalty was undisputedly allowable to the appellant company as neither
the payment of income tax penalty/other liability is an admissible claim
nor the refund thereof is assessable. Therefore, while the payment of
penalty, if debited to the profit and loss account is to be disallowed and
added back to the computation of total income, the refund thereof if
credited to the P&L A/c, has to be allowed as a deduction in the
computation. Therefore, in my view, it will be unjustified if such apparent
mistake in the assessment order is not rectified in the appeal proceedings.