Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)The Appropriation (No. 3) Act, 2001
Shri Sati Builders And Developers Pvt ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 29 March, 2022
However, after
considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that
the reliance of the decision of SA Builders Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and
assessee has failed to establish the commercial exigency aspect considering the
4
ITA No.2373/DEL/2017
ITA No.4963/DEL/2017
fact that the related concerns are not subsidiary companies as discussed in the
above decision. Accordingly, he determined the proportionate interest
expenditure to the extent of Rs.3,13,96,047/-
C.I.T., Punjab, Haryana, J & K, H.P. & ... vs Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. ... on 2 January, 1976
In this regard, he relied on the decision of
CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 55 (SC) and he
submitted that as held by Hon'ble SC, the Court will place itself in the position
of a businessman and find out whether the expenses incurred could be said to
have been laid out for the purpose of business and in the ultimate analysis, the
matter would depend on the intention of the parties as spelt out from the terms
of the agreement or the surrounding circumstances.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs A. Raman & Company on 18 July, 1967
In this regard, the
appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in
the case of CIT Vs. A. Raman & Co. 67 ITR (SC) wherein Justice Shah
speaking for the Court stated that: "....the law does not oblige a trader to
make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions.
Income which accrues to a trader is taxable in his hands: income which he
could have, but has not earned, is not made taxable as income accrued to
him. Further observed that avoidance of tax liability by so arranging
commercial affairs that charge of tax is distributed is not prohibited. A
taxpayer may resort to a device to divert the income before it accrues or
arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon considerations
of morality, but on the operation of the Income Tax Act. Legislative
injunction in taxing statutes may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated,
but it may lawfully be circumvented."
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 19 September, 1966
The appellant also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 63 ITR 207 wherein
the Court has held that expenditure incurred not with a view to direct or
immediate benefit for the purpose of commercial expediency and in order
indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business is therefore, expenditure
laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade.
.......................
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
d. In the case of the case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal (2006) 5SCC 353
it was contended that any registered document was presumed to be
executed in a valid manner unless such fraud and forgery has been proved
by the person challenging the validity of such document.
Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh on 2 May, 2006
Another case of
Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 confirmed the opinion
that in order to shift the burden of proof proper tangible evidence has to
be presented before the court rather than just making mere statements.
Commisioner Of Income Tax Delhi-I, New ... vs Bharti Televenture Ltd. Qutab ... on 3 January, 2011
In these circumstances, the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal appropriately relied on under CIT v. Bharti
Televenture Ltd. [20117 11 taxmann.com 356/200 Taxman 39 (Mag.)/331
ITR 502 (Delhi). The finding with respect to commercial expediency in the
circumstances does not mil for interference."