Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.32 seconds)
Laxmi Finance And Leasing Companies ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 29 August, 2024 cites

M/S. Shree Lakshmi Finance ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, ... on 19 July, 2019

M/s. Laxmi Finance Vs. Deputy Commissioner of And Leasing Income Tax-23(1) Company Co-op Room No.511, Fifth Floor, Society Ltd. Piramal Chambers, Laxmi Towres, Lalbaug Plot C-25 Maharashtra-400 012 BKC, Bandra East Maharashtra-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAAJL0006F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing 29/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/08/2024 आदे श / O R D E R PER BENCH:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sachin R. Tendulkar, Mumbai vs Dcit 23(3), Mumbai on 10 August, 2018

4.5. We find that the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sachin R Tendulkar vs. DCIT reported in 172 ITR 266 and in the case of Somu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 173 ITR 82 wherein it was held that in respect of vacant properties annual value need to be determined in accordance with Section 23(1)(c) of the Act if property remains vacant for the whole of the year.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sri Vivek Jain, Kolkata vs Acit, Cir-37, Kolkata, Kolkata on 18 August, 2017

4.6. Per contra, the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vivek Jain vs. ACIT reported in 14 Taxmann.com 146. When the Bench confronted the ld. AR as to whether there is any other High Court decision contrary to the decision of the Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court quoted by the ld. DR, the ld. AR answered in negative.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

M/S. Sneh Enterprises vs Commnr. Of Customs, New Delhi on 8 September, 2006

6.7. The ld. DR also pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in ITA Nos. 494- 500/Mum/2011 dated 04/09/2013 has been subsequently reversed by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court reported in 75 Taxmann.com 39. The Revenue had preferred a Special Leave Petition against the said decision before the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the same has been admitted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court which is reported in 84 Taxmann.com 240.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 64 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 March, 2001

12. The construction placed on section 23(l)(c), by Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that if there is an intention to let out the property during the relevant year, coupled with efforts being made for letting it out, it must be held the property is let, would necessitate reading words into section 23(1)(c) which do not exist. The words "where the property is let" cannot be read as 10 ITA No.4232/Mum/2023 & others M/s. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-operative Society Ltd., "where the property is intended to be let". The provisions of a tax statute must be strictly construed. The words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning. Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 4 SCC 534. The Legislature may be safely presumed to have intended what the words plainly say.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 226 - Full Document

Gursahai Saigal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 31 August, 1962

It has even been said that "if the provision is so wanting in clarity that no meaning is reasonably clear, the courts will be unable to regard it as of any effect - Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ; Bethlehem Hospital In re [1875] L.R. 19 Eq 457; A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala 1957 SCR 837 ; IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216 ; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 4 SCC 378 ; Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 306 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

A. V. Fernandez vs The State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1957

IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 (HL), A.V. Fernandez's case (supra) Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Haryana State Board [1992] 1 SCC 418). The meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather 11 ITA No.4232/Mum/2023 & others M/s. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-operative Society Ltd., than from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to that is just or expedient. The expressed intention must guide the court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 258 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Cst, Delhi vs Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd on 28 February, 2011

It has even been said that "if the provision is so wanting in clarity that no meaning is reasonably clear, the courts will be unable to regard it as of any effect - Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ; Bethlehem Hospital In re [1875] L.R. 19 Eq 457; A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala 1957 SCR 837 ; IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216 ; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 4 SCC 378 ; Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 Next