Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 17 November, 2017 cites

Official Liquidator, Golcha ... vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 22 March, 1972

(ix) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was required to intimate the last financial year in which the mining activities were 8 ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/s Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO carried out by the appellant at its mines. Vide order sheet entry dated 20.10.2016, it was submitted by the AR that at least since FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, no mining activities were carried out as environment clearance were not obtained. Even, as on date, the mining activities on the mines leased to the appellant company were not started. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the mining activities were temporarily discontinued during the year under consideration is not correct as at least for the last 7-8 years, no mining activities were carried out by the appellant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Chennai Properties And Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 March, 1998

(viii) It may be mentioned that in a recent decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs CIT[2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the main objects of the appellant company and held that where in terms of Memorandum of Association, main object of assessee- company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property. The Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to Constitution bench decision of Sultan Brothers (P.)
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 227 - R J Babu - Full Document

Royal Palms (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 13(3)(1), Mumbai on 22 September, 2017

(xi) Thus, since the appellant was not having the statutory approval to do the mining activities for the last 7-8 years, it cannot be said that it temporarily discontinued the mining activities. It may be mentioned that in the case of Royal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 86 (Chandigarh Trib.)(Third Member), it has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT that:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Integrated Technologies Ltd on 16 December, 2011

* In CIT v. Integrated Technologies Ltd., the High Court of Delhi in ITA 530/2011 doted 16-12-2011, holds that the only condition to claim depreciation etc., as expenditure is that it is not necessary that plant & machinery owned by the assessee should be actually put to use in the relevant accounting year to justify the claim of depreciation and even if such plant & machinery or other assets are kept ready for use in assessee's business, the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation. The only condition added is that the business should not be closed down once and for all and that the assessee should demonstrate that the hopes of the business being revived are alive and real. It is however not a matter that can turn entirely on the assessee's hopes alone but then there should be evidence on record to show that the assessee took efforts to keep the business alive in the hope of reviving it. [Para 6] * It is not disputed by both the sides that section 60 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, which was attracted to the facts of the present case, outlawed any business activity in Liquor without license, making it punishable with imprisonment. [Para 10] * In the circumstances, it is held that because of the statutory prohibition under the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, it could not be said that there was a temporary lull in the business of the assessee but that there was a legal bar. (emphasis supplied) * In the result, it is held that assessee is not entitled to deduction on account of depreciation and other expenses as claimed when no business of wholesale liquor trade was carried on by the assessee in assessment year in appeal. [Para 12]
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Shi K N Surendra Reddy & Smt Vinutha Reddy on 2 November, 2011

(i) The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the appellant company has not carried out any business activities and it has given its machinery on lease to its group concern M/s Udaipur Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (UMDSPL) and has declared income from lease rent at Rs 60 Lac and treated the same as business income and claimed huge expenses against the said lease income. The AO treated the lease rent as income from other sources' instead of 'income from business' the appellant company by holding that since, no business activities were carried out by the appellant during the year under consideration and the income from letting off of machinery cannot be assessed under the head business income. The AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. K. Narendra [2000] 246 ITR 579 (Del.).
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1