Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.52 seconds)
Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 4 February, 2022 cites

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 8 vs Shree Vardhman Overseas Ltd. on 20 February, 2020

39. We do not see any reason to interfere into the findings of Ld.CIT(A) as Ld.CIT(A) has rightly followed the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Shree Vardman Overseas Limited 343 ITR 408 (Del.). Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material to suggest that the liabilities have seized to exist. In the absence of such material, no interference is called for. Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs Holcim India P. Ltd. on 5 September, 2014

34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding on fact that the assessee had not earned any exempt income. Therefore, in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Holcim India Pvt.Ltd. [2014] 272 ITR 282 (Del.), we hereby dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. Thus, Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 391 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Jubilee Mills Ltd., Bombay on 5 December, 1967

Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 579/131 Taxman 810 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samacltar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 205/(1998] 100 Taxman 116 (Delhi) and CIT v. Gautam Motors [2011] 334 ITR 326/[2010] 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) 20 ITA Nos. 2576, 3899 /Del/2015 ITA No. 2523/Del/2017 merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Regal Theatre vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi. on 8 March, 1965

Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 579/131 Taxman 810 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samacltar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 205/(1998] 100 Taxman 116 (Delhi) and CIT v. Gautam Motors [2011] 334 ITR 326/[2010] 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) 20 ITA Nos. 2576, 3899 /Del/2015 ITA No. 2523/Del/2017 merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Gautam Motors, on 19 July, 2010

Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 579/131 Taxman 810 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained in CIT v. Bombay Samacltar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 205/(1998] 100 Taxman 116 (Delhi) and CIT v. Gautam Motors [2011] 334 ITR 326/[2010] 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) 20 ITA Nos. 2576, 3899 /Del/2015 ITA No. 2523/Del/2017 merely because the Assessee was a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as business expenditure.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 Next