Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)

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

In the said circumstances your office should not have erred in estimating income at 10% of W.I. P in the said circumstances, We most humbly request Your Honour to pass an order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on C.I.T. vs Bilhari investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) and Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) Le. consistency of system of accounting adopted in earlier years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1110 - R B Misra - Full Document

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, ... vs Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-6, ... on 12 November, 2021

06.02.2014 We most Humbly want's to draw Your Honour's kind attention towards the fact that your office has inadvertently stated that our company does not have any business activity, hence interest of Rs. 50,96,138/- be not allowed. In fact our income has been assessed as business income for the year at Rs. 3,50,35,867/- after giving effect to your order dated 7th January. 2013. In addition vide our letter dated 6th November, 2011 we had submitted that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business and there is no diversion of borrowed funds. In addition in statement of facts it was submitted that current liabilities of Rs. 8,44,03,076/- was non- interest bearing funds and same was used in business. Hence there was no investment made for non business purpose. We had also submitted our submission in statement of facts in clause 6 to the appeal memo that interest payment to Bank of Maharashtra of Rs. 50,96,138/-be allowed by relying on judgement in case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd vs C.I.T. It is submitted that the same be followed being jurisdictional court, ie. High Court Bombay as per details given below:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1