Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Akshay Textiles Trading And Agencies ... on 17 October, 2007
Moreover, the Tribunal in
the case of Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to
consider the latest judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
in the case of Adbhut Trading Co. P. Ltd. (supra) in which the
Hon'ble High Court following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have allowed the claim
of the assessee.
C.I.T. Central Bombay vs Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd on 9 August, 1985
Moreover, the Tribunal in
the case of Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) had no occasion to
consider the latest judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
in the case of Adbhut Trading Co. P. Ltd. (supra) in which the
Hon'ble High Court following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have allowed the claim
of the assessee.
Section 1 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kochi on 2 May, 2002
12. Respectfully following the said decision we delete the addition,
directed to be made u/s 115JB in respect of the capital gains of
₹ 6,92,439/- . This ground is allowed.
Acit vs Bright Star Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 2 July, 2008
In so far as the disallowance u/s 14A while computing the book
profits is concerned the issue is now squarely covered by the Delhi Special
Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vereet Investment Private
Limited [82 taxmann.com 415]. The Special Bench held that the
computation under Clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to
be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A
r/w Rule 8D of Income tax Rules 1962. Respectfully following the said
decision, we hold that no disallowance is warranted under section 14A
while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Thus we direct the
Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A while
computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. This ground is allowed.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai ... vs M/S. Veekaylal Investment Co. P. Ltd. on 8 February, 2001
4.2 The revenue has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Bombay in the case of Veekaylal Investment Co. P. Ltd. (supra),
but the said judgment had been delivered prior to the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) and,
therefore reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
is misplaced.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai vs M/S. Churu Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 14 August, 2015
1) CIT v. Abhut Trading Co Pvt Ltd (2001) 338 ITR 94 (Bom)
Section 40 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 10(2), Mumbai on 21 December, 2016
14. Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessing Officer while
completing the assessment disallowed ₹ 22,71,635/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D
observing that the dividend income is to be considered for the purpose of
section 14A in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case
of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. DCIT. He also
observed that the Hon'ble High Court stated even though assessee
contends that tax-free investments have been made out of own funds, this
does not mean that there is no expenditure incurred for earning tax-free
income thus the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section u/s
14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act and disallowed direct expenditure of ₹ 31,264/-
, interest of ₹ 3,62,629/- and 0.5% of average investments at ₹ 18,72,219/-
put together at ₹ 22,71,635/-. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the
disallowance keeping in view the special bench in the case of Daga
Capital Management reported in (2008) 26 SOT 603 (Mum).