Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)
Menzies Bobba Ground Handling Services ... vs Dcit, Cirlce-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad on 18 July, 2023 cites

Cit vs Ekl Appliances Ltd on 29 March, 2012

8. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Insofar as the rendition of services or their benefit is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned AR, neither the learned Assessing Officer nor the learned TPO nor the learned CIT(A) doubted either the actual rendition of services rendered by the AE or the utility of such services to the assessee. To this fact situation, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del), is applicable on all fours and for the sake of ready reference, we deem it just an appropriate to extract the relevant portion here under,-
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 352 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd., Bombay vs C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1979

In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was omitted from the section.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 337 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979

9. Though several decisions are cited by the learned AR on this aspect, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, which stands undisturbed so far, it is not necessary to refer to all such decisions on the very same principle. Natural consequence is that in the absence of any doubt expressed by the learned Assessing Officer/learned TPO or learned CIT(A), it is not open for the learned DR to raise any new point as to actual rendition of services at this stage and all the decisions relied upon by him, namely, Akzonobel India (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT [2022] 145 taxmann.com 468 (Delhi), Yanfeng India Automotive Interior Systems (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 430 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991

13. It is true that resjudicata is not applicable to tax proceedings, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in many cases including Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT [1991] 100 CTR 267 (SC) that it is not open for the Revenue to take various stands for various years and Rule of Consistency demands that in case of a particular assessee under identical circumstances, different views cannot be taken. This factor also goes against the Revenue. Therefore, based on the Rule of Consistency, rejection of the same for the years under appeal is unjustified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1110 - R B Misra - Full Document
1