Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)Income Tax Officer vs Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd. on 11 July, 2008
(ii) Interest u/s 234D of the Act cannot be charged for the assessment
year under consideration in lieu of the finding of the Hon'ble Delhi 'E'
Bench in the case of ITO v. Ekta Promoter Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 117 TTJ
ITA Nos.982, 1001, 1416 & 1461/Ahd/2006
289 wherein it has been that 'interest under section 234D could not
be charged in respect of assessment years falling prior to
assessment year 2004-05'.
Commissioner, Income ... vs K. Ravindranathan Nair on 13 November, 2007
"5............it is noticed that scrap sale form part of sale of
scrap generated during the manufacturing process of the
assessee and this being an integral part of the
manufacturing activity, the income there-from is to be
considered for the purpose of working out deduction u/s
80HH of the Act. However, as regards to the claim of
deduction u/s 80HHC, this income does not come within the
purview of export income. Hence, in view of the latest
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. K.
Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC), the assessee
is not eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. However,
this will be included in the formula for the purposes of
computation of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act as profit of
the business. In view of these directions, the assessing
officer will re-compute the income with regard to deduction
u/s 80HH and 80HHC of the Act."
Ifb Agro Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 July, 2002
(i) IFB Agro Industries Ltd v. CIT [83 ITD 96 (Cal)(SB)] and (ii) CIT v.
Chloride India Ltd [256 ITR 625 (Cal)] directed the AO not to include
sales-tax and excise duty in the total turnover for the purpose of
computation of deduction u/s 80-HHC of the Act.
Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Commr. Of Income Tax (Central I), ... on 16 July, 1997
8. Ground No. 4: Disallowance of Rs.40,709/- was made by the
AO with regard to amortization of premium paid for land taken on lease.
The CIT (A), relying on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Govind Sugar Mills Limited v. CIT reported in 232 ITR 319 (SC) held
that the expenditure related to acquisition of lease hold rights of the land
was capital in nature.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu ... vs Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. Etc on 12 August, 1998
8.3 Incidentally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the CIT v.
Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd reported in 233 ITR 468 (SC) had ruled
thus:
Triveni Engineering And Industries ... vs Dcit on 22 November, 2004
(f) Unclaimed credit written off 57,205
Total 62,24,820
13.1 In respect of (a) i.e., interest income on amounts overdue from
customers of Rs.53.16 lakhs, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in its
ITA Nos.982, 1001, 1416 & 1461/Ahd/2006
ruling in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd v. DCIT reported in 283 ITR
402 (Guj) had observed that:
Lakhanpal National Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 9 March, 1999
5. (i) With regard to disallowance of the assessee's claim of
investment allowance at 20% on foreign currency loan on exchange rate
fluctuation (ground Nos: 1 & 2); it has been observed that the Hon'ble
ITA Nos.982, 1001, 1416 & 1461/Ahd/2006
jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for the AY 1983-84
in Tax Appeal No.279 of 1999 [Lakhanpal National Ltd v. ITO] on
24.10.2002 had held that the assessee is entitled to investment
allowance in respect of additional cost suffered by it due to exchange
rate fluctuation.
Central Board Of Direct Taxes vs Cochin Goods Transport Association on 14 October, 1998
(ii) CBDT v. Cochin Goods Transport Assn. (1999) 236 ITR
993(Ker)
A.R. Krishnamurthy & Anr vs C.I.T. Madras on 10 February, 1989
25.1 At the outset, we would like to recall the ruling of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of A.R. Krishnsamurthy & Another V. CIT (176 ITR
417 (SC) that 'the license to use or right to use is also a capital asset';