Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank ... vs Dy.Cit, Lucknow on 22 May, 2025 cites

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006

However, we observe that this deduction had claimed for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) in the said order does not appear to have discussed or decided the issue at all. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with a direction to the Ld. AO to consider the claim in the light of the CBDT Instruction No. 17 dated 26.11.2008 and the case laws cited by the assessee before us and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Ground No. 3 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4 relates to the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra). As this is a matter already decided by various courts, a decision is not required in the same at our end. Similarly, ground no. 5 is general in nature and therefore does not require a decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1246 - Full Document

Smt. Rajrani Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 February, 1999

As pointed out by the assessee, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt Rajrani Gulati vs CIT (supra) has pointed out that the aforesaid case does not place any restriction on the powers of the appellate authority, and therefore the ground should have been entertained for decision on merits. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the evidence placed before him and take a decision on the merits. Ground no. 4, 5 & 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground no. 7 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Pcit (Central)- 3 vs M/S Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd on 27 April, 2022

and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in the case of PCIT vs Sintex Industries Ltd (supra) that where assessee had surplus funds against which investment were made, question of making of any disallowance of expenditure in 17 ITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024 ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 respect of interest and administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act did not arise. The Ld. CIT(A) once again without considering the issue on merits, simply held that the Assessing Officer had given an opportunity to the assessee to make necessary compliance but the assessee was unable to give any cogent reason for non disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act, barring the submission mentioned earlier in his order. He, therefore, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO, in view of the Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014. With regard to the deduction of Rs.12,61,009/- being fall in value of securities, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the claim of the appellant on the ground that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim by furnishing supporting evidence in the assessment stage before the AO. Therefore, he confirmed the said addition. With regard to "NACH Expenses", the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, holding that the assessee was unable to justify its claim as how the same expenditure was incidental to business and with regard to claim of depreciation of Rs.2,16,596/-, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that since the assessee had failed to substantiate its claim with regard to addition to assets with necessary documentary evidence, the same could not be allowed. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground and after allowing certain other additions, which are not the subject matter of this appeal, he held that the appeal to be partly allowed.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Manmohan - Full Document

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 12 October, 2022

Therefore, since the Assessing Officer had already adopted the higher figure as disclosed in the return for the purposes of computation and not the profit as reflected in the profit and loss account, there was no occasion for making any addition on this account. The addition is therefore, deleted and ground no. 1 is allowed. With regard to ground no. 2, we note that the payment on account of employees share of provident fund has admittedly not been made within the time lines specified under the relevant act. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the disallowance by following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd vs CIT (supra). However, the assessee has pointed out, that by mistake it submitted a wrong figure during the course of assessment, as a result of which total disallowance that has been made, was more than the actual amount of employees contribution debited in P&L account. Accordingly, we restore this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the actual amount of disallowance with regard to expenditure claimed. Ground no. 2 is accordingly disallowed while ground no. 3 is 6 ITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024 ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 partly allowed as above. With regard to ground no. 4, we observe that if assessee submitted that it had paid a sum of Rs.2,05,225/- on account of leave encashment during the year, then the same would be allowable to it as per law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 378 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd on 25 November, 2014

Reliance was also placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (2015) 54 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs DCIT 67 taxmann.com 42 the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs NHPC Ltd (2015) 53 taxmann.com 301, M/s. Hero Fin Corp Ltd vs DCIT, Circle-12(1) (Delhi Trib) and M/s. Ceat Limited vs ACIT, Range- 6(2) in support of this preposition. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee but did not find the same to be acceptable. He said that sub-clause (2) of Section 14A clearly stated that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with 10 ITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024 ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 correctness of the claim of the assessee, he could determine the expenditure with regard to earning of exempt income as per method prescribed by the notification dated 24.02.2018 by the CBDT and that the assessee had not be able to offer any cogent reason for non disallowance of the expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, he held that the decision of the Ld. AO was in accordance with law and he confirmed the addition made by him. With regard to addition of Rs.2,23,54,660/-, the assessee submitted that in the audited profit and loss account and in the return of income, it had not claimed exemption u/s 2(15) of the Act in respect of GOI Bonds of Rs.2,23,54,660/-. The Ld. AO had incorrectly held that the said deduction had been claimed in the return as well as the balance-sheet. However the assessee submitted the return and the balance-sheet to the Ld. CIT(A) to demonstrate that it had not claimed the deductions. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was merits in the contention of the assessee as he could neither find any claims of expenditure of Rs.2,23,54,660/- under the head exemption on account of interest income on Government of India Bond nor could he find it deducted from income declared from profit and gain of the business and profession, which was computed at a loss of Rs.1,24,81,747/-. Accordingly, he granted relief to the assessee in this regard.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 197 - S Khanna - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor To Businss Of ... vs Dcit 2(3), Mumbai on 13 January, 2022

Reliance was also placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (2015) 54 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs DCIT 67 taxmann.com 42 the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs NHPC Ltd (2015) 53 taxmann.com 301, M/s. Hero Fin Corp Ltd vs DCIT, Circle-12(1) (Delhi Trib) and M/s. Ceat Limited vs ACIT, Range- 6(2) in support of this preposition. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee but did not find the same to be acceptable. He said that sub-clause (2) of Section 14A clearly stated that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with 10 ITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024 ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 correctness of the claim of the assessee, he could determine the expenditure with regard to earning of exempt income as per method prescribed by the notification dated 24.02.2018 by the CBDT and that the assessee had not be able to offer any cogent reason for non disallowance of the expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, he held that the decision of the Ld. AO was in accordance with law and he confirmed the addition made by him. With regard to addition of Rs.2,23,54,660/-, the assessee submitted that in the audited profit and loss account and in the return of income, it had not claimed exemption u/s 2(15) of the Act in respect of GOI Bonds of Rs.2,23,54,660/-. The Ld. AO had incorrectly held that the said deduction had been claimed in the return as well as the balance-sheet. However the assessee submitted the return and the balance-sheet to the Ld. CIT(A) to demonstrate that it had not claimed the deductions. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was merits in the contention of the assessee as he could neither find any claims of expenditure of Rs.2,23,54,660/- under the head exemption on account of interest income on Government of India Bond nor could he find it deducted from income declared from profit and gain of the business and profession, which was computed at a loss of Rs.1,24,81,747/-. Accordingly, he granted relief to the assessee in this regard.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next