Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 October, 2006
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the ratio of judgment of
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant
Kumar vs. CIT 28 ITR 278 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held
that application under Rule 46A must be made for admission of
additional evidences with reasons showing the purposes of the
additional evidences and also reasons for not producing it
earlier."
Lord'S Dairy Farm Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 17 February, 1955
15. We noted that the CIT(A) has not doubted the genuineness of these
claims and only basis for confirming the disallowance is that these items
claimed by the assessee under the head "amortization of expenses" is actually
in the nature of capital loss and cannot be allowed as revenue expenses u/s
37(1) of the Act. At this point, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on
the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lord's Dairy Farm
Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 700 (Bom.) and stated in that case Hon'ble Bombay
High Court has considered the issue that nomenclature does not matter
whether it is a loss claimed under trading head or it is claimed as bad debts.
According to the learned counsel for the assessee, Hon'ble Bombay High Court
was dealing with the provisions of Section 10(1)(xv) as well as the provisions of
Section 10(2)(xi). Hon'ble Bombay High Court answered this question while
stating that in the given facts that the embezzlement committed by the
employee is a trading loss and falls u/s 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.
Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed as under:
1