Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Saurashtra Cement Limited,Porbandar vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 January, 2026 cites

The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Gvk Project And Technical Services ... on 3 May, 2019

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court and upheld the order of High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. GVK Project & Technical Services Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 181 (SC)/[2019] 264 Taxman 76 (SC) [03-05-2019], where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that in absence of any exempt income reported by assessee, disallowance could not be made under section 14A of the Act. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein the Hon'ble High Courts & Tribunals have held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is to be done in absence of exempted income:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Brindavan Beverages Private ... on 8 March, 2021

In this regard assessee placed reliance on the judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 477 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that where Tribunal having found that assessee had sufficient own funds well covering loan and advances made to its directors and sister concern, allowed deduction of interest on loan, no substantial question of law arose out of impugned order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vgp Housing (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2014

Further, reliance is placed on judgement in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Chennai vs. VGP Housing (P.) Ltd. [2016] 66 taxmann.com 354 (Madras)/[2014] 368 ITR 565 (Madras) [04-08-2014] wherein it was held that where advance to group companies without interest was made in earlier year and that too out of interest free funds, disallowance of interest expenditure for such advance in subsequent year was not proper and the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of assessee.Thus, in view of the above, no disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act is applicable to the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000

ITA No.307 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2018-19) 11 PCIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer's order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii)Assessing Officer's order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the PCIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law". In the assessee`s case under consideration, we find that order passed by the assessing officer is sustainable in Law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that AO's order cannot be termed as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, jurisdictional condition precedent as prescribed by Saurashtra Cement Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2080 - S S Quadri - Full Document
1   2 Next