Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.48 seconds)The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Reliance Petro Marketing Limited on 2 November, 2018
29. The decision relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of CIT Vs.
Reliance Petro Products (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case as the
information given in the return of income has been found to be incorrect. It is not a case
merely of making incorrect claim for deduction, but it is a case of bogus claim for set off
of loss of firm against income of individual. It is also a case of bogus claim in respect of
road roller hire charges.
S. Parvathammal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 January, 1984
Such trade of the successor for the purposes of
taxation would be treated as a different trade altogether. Hence, the restriction that the
particular person, predecessor or successor, incurred the loss should alone be entitled to
carry forward and set off against his future income. The provision of section 78(2) of the
Act are unambiguous and, therefore, the loss suffered by the partnership concern cannot
be set off against the profit earned by proprietorship concern. Our view is supported by
the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. S. Parvathammal vs. CIT,
163 ITR 171 (Mad.). In this case the firm constituted by two partners and was dissolved
5
6I.T.A. Nos.884/D/08, 2019/D/09 & 718/D/10
(A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07)
on the death of one of the partners. A new firm was constituted by the surviving partners
and widow of the deceased partners. It was held that in such circumstances there was no
succession by inheritance to the business of the deceased partners so as to entitle the
widow of the deceased partners to carry forward and set off of loss of deceased partner.
Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order
of Assessing Officer.
Section 276C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi ... vs Har Prasad And Co. (P.) Ltd. on 28 February, 1980
Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Har Parshad & Co. Ltd. (supra). Respectfully
following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is held that penalty under section
271(1)(c) is leviable in respect of set off of loss of Rs.22,40,193/- and bogus claim for
payment of road roller hire charges to Ms. Neena Chadha. We, therefore, uphold the
order of the ld. CIT (Appeals).
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V vs P M Electronics Limited on 3 November, 2008
16. Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer had made disallowance
on ad hoc basis. In respect of late deposit of PF & ESI, he submitted that the payment
had been made before the due date for filing of the return of income. The late deposit of
employees contribution towards PF & ESI is allowable in view of decision of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 220 CTR 635(Del) if the
payment is made before due date of filing of the return of income. From the assessment
7
8I.T.A. Nos.884/D/08, 2019/D/09 & 718/D/10
(A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07)
order as well as from the order of CIT(A), it is not clear whether assessee had paid the
employees' contribution before due date of filing of the return of income except in
respect of April to July, 2005. In respect of the balance amount, there is nothing on
record to suggest whether the payments were made before due date of filing of the return
of income. However, as per statement of Ld.AR of the assessee, the payment has been
made before due date for filing of the return. We, therefore, set aside the matter to the
file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to verify the payments received from
employees' contribution in August, 2005 to March, 2006, whether the same have been
paid before due date of filing of the return. If it is found that the assessee had made
payments before the due date of filing of the return, the same will be allowable as
deduction. We order accordingly. As regards employees' contribution for the month of
April to July, 2005, as per assessment order, the actual date of deposit is 16th and 20th
March, 2006. Therefore, the assessee had made payment before the due date of filing of
the return. In respect of these payments, the assessee is entitled for relief.
Kanthimathi Plantations Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 December, 1998
18. We have heard both the parties. The assessee has not maintained any log book
and, therefore, possibility of incurring expenditure for non-business purposes cannot be
ruled out. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kanthimati Plantations Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, 215 ITR 203 .has held that in absence of a log book, the
disallowance made on account of personal use will be justified. Respectfully following
the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court, it is held that Assessing Officer was justified
in disallowing 10% of the vehicle maintenance expenses.
1