Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Sharada Erectors Private Limited, Pune on 24 March, 2026
cites
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. on 18 March, 1970
35. Since the own capital, free reserves and non-interest bearing funds available
with the assessee are far more than the interest free loans and advances given to the
directors and sister concerns, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (supra), no
disallowance is called for. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has followed the said
decision while deleting the disallowance, therefore, in absence of any
distinguishable features brought before us by the Ld. DR, we do not find any
infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleting the addition /
disallowance on merit. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this
issue are also dismissed.
Section 80JJAA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,, Pune vs Acit, Circle 1(2),, Pune on 31 October, 2018
27. Therefore, the first ground raised by the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) /
NFAC has wrongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of M/s. Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) which deals only with
the procedural defect (limitation, absence of DIN, jurisdiction of officer and
validity of approval) is incorrect and without going through the entire judgment the
Revenue has taken a ground which is liable to be quashed. Hence, ground of
appeal No.1 by the Revenue is dismissed.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, ... vs Ito 8(2)(4), Mumbai on 20 April, 2023
30. We find the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Om Shriniwas
Developers vs. ITO (supra) has held that where the Assessing Officer issued
reopening notice on ground that the assessee had sold flats below market rate and,
thus, provisions of section 43CA were attracted and since reopening notice was
issued based on documents which were submitted by assessee during original
assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer had not brought on record any
new facts, therefore reopening notice was nothing but a change of opinion which
was not permissible. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 43CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit - 8 (2)(1), Mumbai on 7 September, 2021
29. We find Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Siemens Financial
Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (supra) has held that where the assessee claimed
expenses of software consumables and submitted a detailed break-up of said
expenses during course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer after
considering said submissions passed assessment order, the Assessing Officer
would not have any power to review his own assessment order and reopen
assessment on ground that software consumables were capital expenditure. The
relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:
M/S. East India Pharmaceutical Works ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. West Bengal on 11 March, 1997
In our
opinion, the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT
[1997] 224 ITR 627 had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta
High Court in Woolcombers of India Ltd. [1982] 134 ITR 219 where a similar
issue had arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been
presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid out of the profits
of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the
business and in these circumstances the appellant was entitled to claim the
deductions. The Supreme Court noted that the argument had considerable force,
but con-sidering the fact that the contention had not been advanced earlier it did
not require to be answered.