Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs Acit-Circle 5 Pune, Pune on 28 June, 2024 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. on 5 August, 2010

17. Similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. (supra). Since the assessee in the instant case is following the project completion method and 90% of the project has already been completed and has sold the flats during the impugned assessment year and has recognized the revenue on the entire sale proceeds, therefore, provision for the construction expenses debited in the Profit and Loss Account amounting to Rs.4 crores which in turn has been incurred through banking channel and which is required to be incurred for the completion of the remaining work, in our opinion, needs to be allowed following the matching concept. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.4 crores. The first two grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 60 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Trf Ltd vs Commnr. Of Income Tax on 9 February, 2010

17. Similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. (supra). Since the assessee in the instant case is following the project completion method and 90% of the project has already been completed and has sold the flats during the impugned assessment year and has recognized the revenue on the entire sale proceeds, therefore, provision for the construction expenses debited in the Profit and Loss Account amounting to Rs.4 crores which in turn has been incurred through banking channel and which is required to be incurred for the completion of the remaining work, in our opinion, needs to be allowed following the matching concept. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.4 crores. The first two grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 561 - Full Document

The Pondicherry Railway Company Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 March, 1931

These are no doubt observations from the English cases dealing with English statutes of Income-tax, but the general principles which can he deduced therefrom (1) (1888) 13 App. Cas. 418, 424 (2) (1892) 3 T. C. 185 are, nevertheless, applicable here and it was stated by Lord Macmillan in Pondicherry Railway Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1) " English authorities can only be utilised with caution in the consideration of Indian Income-tax cases owing to the difference in the relevant legislation, but the principle laid down by Lord Chancellor Halsbury in Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Styles (supra), is of general application unaffected by the specialities of the English Tax system. " The thing to be taxed", said his Lordship, "is the amount of profits or gains ". The word " profits ", I think, is to be understood in its natural and proper sense in a sense which no commercial man would misunderstand."'
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

Badridas Daga vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 April, 1958

The High Court in disallowing the claim of the appellant in the present case only considered the provisions of s. 10 (2)(xv) of the Act and came to the conclusion that on a strict interpretation of those provisions the sum of Rs. 24,809 was not an allowable deduction. Its attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the provisions of s. 10(1) of the Act also but it negatived this argument observing that under the Indian Act, the profits must be determined by the method of making the statutory deductions from the receipts and any deduction from the business receipts, if it was to be allowed, must be brought under one or the other of the deductions mentioned in s. 10(2) and that there was no scope for any preliminary deduction under general principles. It was, however, held by this Court in Badridas Daga v. The Commissioner of Income-tax(1) "It is to be noted that while s. 10(1) imposes a charge on the profits or gains of a trade, it does not provide how those profits are to be computed. Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under S. 10(1)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 285 - Full Document
1