Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Ito 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai on 26 April, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia on 2 March, 1993

The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia, (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom.) held that for claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act, if there is substantial 5 Pritamlal J. Doshi ITA No.1993 & 2247/Mum/2014 investment in the new property and domain over it within the prescribed period, the property used as a residence, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court also considered CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15/10/1986.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 56 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Cyfast Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 10(3), Mumbai on 22 November, 2016

Ltd. (supra) the tenant of the premises had contributed a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores to the work of repairs and restoration/reconstruction of the building in which it was a tenant. The entire amount of Rs. 1.50 crores was claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessee therein had entered into an agreement with the developer to contribute Rs. 1.50crores for the reconstruction/repairs/restoration of the building in consideration of there being no increase in the rent payable by the assessee in the new structure to that being paid in the old structure. It was in the aforesaid facts that it was held that where a lump- sum payment of Rs. 1.50 crores gets rid of annual business expenses chargeable against revenue then the lumpsum is to be regarded as a revenue/business expenditure. The benefit obtained by the assessee in the above case was premises at a lower rent in view of the contribution made to the developer for repairing/reconstructing the premises. Thus, the expenditure was in the revenue field and allowable under Section 37 of the Act. In the present facts, nothing is on record to indicate that there was any advantage secured by the appellant in the revenue field. There was no decrease in the rent nor was there any embargo on future increase in the rent in consideration of the expenditure for renovation. Therefore, the above decision would not apply to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 44 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs M/S Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September, 2008

9. In the view taken by us that the expenditure of 75% of Rs. 31.32 lacs i.e. Rs. 23.49 lakhs is on capital account, the submission to claim deduction on account of Section 30 of the Act made by the Appellant need not be examined. Nor the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 182/175 Taxman 132 (Delhi) relied upon for interpretation of Section 30 of the Act need be examined. This for the reason that the Explanation to Section 30 of the Act itself provides that the amount paid on the cost of repairs would not include any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure. Although this Explanation to Section 30 of the Act was introduced in 2004 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, the Explanation itself clarifies that it has been introduced for removal of doubts. Therefore, it would be applicable even for the period prior 1st April, 2004 including the subject Assessment year. It is for the above reason the learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly did not even attempt to suggest that deduction under Section 30 of the Act would be available even in respect of capital expenditure.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 65 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 Next