Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.95 seconds)
Ranjeet D Vaswani, Mumbai vs Acit 12(3), Mumbai on 19 April, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-I vs H.G. Gupta & Sons on 8 December, 1983

7. We, therefore, answer the reference in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. As the assessee has not put in appearance, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.'' 7.5 The obtaining factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronunciation of law. Respectfully following the judgement of the ITA No. 3481/Mum/2014 14 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of H.G. Gupta and Sons (supra), we dismiss ground no 1 to 4 of the assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Societe Internationale De ... vs Assessee on 10 April, 2015

7.2 It is a settled law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO's decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). Therefore we are not addressing to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee that consistency should be made.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Acit, Cir-27, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata on 28 February, 2017

In Sunil Kumar Agarwal (supra), the assessee had purchased commercial space in a society which had been let out to a company. The agreement with the tenant stipulated that the property tax and the maintenance charges payable to the society would be borne by the owner as the same was duly compensated in the gross rent. In his return of income, the assessee had shown gross rent and claimed deduction on account of charges paid to the society for maintenance. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim holding that 30 per cent deduction allowed under section 24 takes care of such expenses. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. The Tribunal held that "the assessee was paying the charges to the society for the common area amenities which was deductible from the gross rent received by the assessee. The charges paid to the society by the assessee were not covered in the allowable deduction as enumerated under section 24 since the gross rent received by the assessee also included the society charges which were to be paid by the assessee. Therefore, the annual value of the actual rent received by the owner is to be determined as per the provisions of section 23. As such the deduction on account of charges paid to the society for availing of the facilities of generator, lift, lighting, common area sweeping etc., was allowable from the gross rent."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 12 May, 1959

7.2 It is a settled law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO's decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). Therefore we are not addressing to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee that consistency should be made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 166 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1