Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)
Kanchenjunga Advertising (P) Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar on 6 December, 1960

Thus, the assessee is directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 48 ITR 67 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar, 41 ITR 445 (Supreme Court), and Amarchand Sobhachand Vs. CIT, 82 ITR 591 Supreme Court). Since the issue is directly covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, respectfully following the precedents, we hold that the amount of `50,00,000/- cannot be treated as a proper debt of revenue nature or incurred in the ordinary course of money lending business carried on by the assessee, which could be allowed as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 55 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Amarchand Sobhachand vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 29 July, 1969

Thus, the assessee is directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 48 ITR 67 (Supreme Court), CIT Vs. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar, 41 ITR 445 (Supreme Court), and Amarchand Sobhachand Vs. CIT, 82 ITR 591 Supreme Court). Since the issue is directly covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, respectfully following the precedents, we hold that the amount of `50,00,000/- cannot be treated as a proper debt of revenue nature or incurred in the ordinary course of money lending business carried on by the assessee, which could be allowed as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010

5.1 In the case of Zoom Communication (P) Limited (supra) the assessee had claimed inter alia the deduction of Income-tax. The explanation of the assessee was that it was a bona-fide mistake. The Tribunal held that the explanation is bona fide. It has been mentioned that no reason has been advanced as to why it was not detected by the persons who checked the return of income. The decision of the Tribunal suffers from the vice of perversity, as a general view cannot be taken in the matter. It cannot be accepted that no person would claim deduction of Income-tax with a view to avoid payment of tax. The ratio which emerges from this case is that a general view cannot be taken while weighing the explanation. It is the explanation on record which has to be taken into consideration in the context of overall facts to find whether it is bona fide or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 505 - V K Jain - Full Document

The Commr. Of Income Tax Delhi Iv vs M/S. Escorts Finance Ltd. on 15 September, 2022

In order 4 5 81-2010-KA-Bansal to support this case, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi); CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi); CIT Vs. IFCI Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 611 (Delhi); Devsons (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 322 ITR 158 (Supreme Court).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 35 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008

5.2 In the case of Escorts Finance Limited, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35D. The argument of the learned counsel for the revenue was that the explanation of the assessee is that the claim is 6 7 81-2010-KA-Bansal based upon advise of the Chartered Accountant furnished at the time of the public issue. This advice could not be the basis for filing the return of income. The deduction u/s 35D is ex-facie inadmissible in the case of a finance company. The Hon'ble court agreed with these contentions and while doing so, it took note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, (2008) 306 ITR 277. The ratio of the case is that if the claim is ex facie bogus, the assessee makes himself liable for penalty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 1355 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next