Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Asstt. Cit vs Global Agencies (P) Ltd. on 22 May, 2003 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L. Alagusundaram Chettiar on 6 October, 1976

23.3 learned departmental Representative next relied upon the Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT v. L. Alagusuhdaram Chettiar (supra). The facts, in this case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as there was an admission by the recipient to the fact that the assessed received money from the company using a low paid employee as a conduct for such payment. The decision, therefore, does not help the revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Jamnadas Khimji Kothari on 4 October, 1972

23.4 In CIT v. Jamnadas Khimji Kothari (supra), relied upon by the learned departmental Representative, the decision is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as there was a debit balance in the account of the shareholder in the books of the company which represent loan advanced to the shareholder. The decision does not render any assistance to the case of the revenue.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P.-Ii, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar Factory ... on 6 May, 1988

22. Further reference will be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court, construing the word deposit held that the essence of a deposit is that there must be a liability to return it to the party by whom or whose behalf it is made on the fulfillment of certain conditions. Security deposit in the case of the assessed essentially fulfills the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, such deposit could neither be treated as loan nor advance received by the assessed- company. The addition of Rs. 40,50,000 treating the credit balances as deemed dividend is liable to be deleted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 166 - M H Kania - Full Document

Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 May, 1998

23.2 The first decision cited by the learned departmental Representative is Calcutta High Court in the case of MD Jindal v. CIT (supra). In this decision, the facts are entirely distinguishable inasmuch a finding of fact had been recorded that agreements arrived at with the assessed- company by the Directorates of the Company were not genuine and had been entered into with a view to circumvent the provisions of section 2(22)(e). No such finding has been recorded by the assessing officer and no such finding, in our opinion, flows from the facts and evidence on record.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 116 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. ... vs K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer on 25 November, 1997

With regard to the word 'loan' learned counsel referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1998) 230 ITR 522 (Del) wherein the distinction between a loan and a deposit has been explained by the Hon'ble Court. The court observed that in the case of a loan, it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek out the creditor and to repay the money according to the agreement and in the case of the deposit, it is generally the duty of the depositor to go to the Banker or to the deposite as the case may be and make a demand for it. Learned counsel pointed out that security deposit are liable to be construed as deposit and would in any case fall outside the purview of the expression loan used in section 2(22)(e).
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 46 - Full Document
1