Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
17. We find substantial force in the contention of the ld. A.R that
now when the assessee had sufficient own funds of Rs. 96.55 crores
available with it, therefore, it could safely be presumed that the said
amount was utilized for making investment in the exempt income
yielding investments of Rs.6,08,36,459/- by the assessee during the
year. We find that our aforesaid view stand fortified by the judgment of
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner Of
Income-tax Vs. HDFC Bank Limited. (2013) 366 ITR 505 (Bom).
We further find that the ld. A.R had averred before us that as the
assessee had not received any exempt dividend income during the year
under consideration, therefore, there was no occasion for making any
disallowance under Sec.14A. We are persuaded to be in agreement
with the aforesaid claim of the ld. A.R, and are of the considered view
that now when there was no exempt income received or receivable by
the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, there
remained no occasion for having disallowed any expenditure under
Sec.14A of the Act.
Aarey Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Ltd, ... vs Acit Cen Cir 13, Mumbai on 3 November, 2017
Before parting,
we may herein observe that our aforesaid view is fortified by the order
of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Kopran
Drugs Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 35 DTR 380 (Mum), as relied upon by
the ld. A.R., wherein the Tribunal adjudicating on the issue as is there
before us in the present case, had in the backdrop of similar facts
involved in the said case observed as under:
M/S. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 16 June, 2017
The ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention placed reliance on
the order of the ITAT, Special bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet
Investment Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 502/Del/2012); dated. 16.06.2017.
Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R')
submitted that the assessee had failed to substantiate the writing off
the inventories of the value of Rs.14,40,81,661/-. The ld. D.R
submitted that the claim of the assessee that the order of the Hon'ble
High Court was received late did not appear to be logical and was
nothing better than a claim raised in the thin air. The ld. D.R further
submitted that even in the audit report of the assessee there was no
whisper as regards writing off the inventories by the assessee.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Turquoise Investments And Finance Ltd. ... on 27 May, 2003
4902 & 5263/Mum/2013 AY: 2009-10
Sequent Scientific Limited Vs. ACIT Range 3(3)
computing the MAT liability of the assessee under Sec. 115JB is no
more res integra in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bengal Finance & Investments Pvt.
Ltd. (ITA No. 337 of 337 of 2013; dated.
1