Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)M/S J K Panthaki And Co., vs Income Tax Officer (Inv), on 7 September, 2010
19. Coming to the case laws relied upon that the ld. DR, the Honorable
Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. Panthaki & Co. (Supra) came to a
factual finding that illegal gratification was paid to the director's of the Co.
and it was a secret commission. Hence the disallowance was upheld on the
ground that the expenditure though not an offence.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala vs Piara Singh on 8 May, 1980
10. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT,
Patiala Vs. Piara Singh 124 ITR 40 for the proposition that even in an illegal
business, the loss which sprang directly from the carrying on of the illegal
business and which was incidental to such business has to be allowed as a
deduction.
Dr. T. A. Quereshi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal on 6 December, 2006
11. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dr. T.A.Quereshi Vs. CIT 287 ITR 547 that the Explanation-2
5 I.T.A. No. 2951/Del/2007
Section 37 has no relevance when it was not the case of business expenditure
but was one of business loss and that cases cannot be decided on one's own
moral views. He filed a paper book running into 176 pages while consist of
15 case laws and relied on the same.
Ito, Ward-15(1), New Delhi vs Anita Sapra, New Delhi on 28 August, 2019
The decision must be
supported by concrete facts and cogent evidences. This is a fundamental rule
of justice. Thus, in the fact-situation of the instant case, the Revenue has
failed to justify invocation of the said Explanation and consequent addition,
as the parties to whom commission was paid, mode of payment through
account payee cheques, quantum of commission, for the purpose of business
and for the services rendered by the parties, remained undisputed."
16.1 The Delhi 'G' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Sanjay
Enterprises at Para 5 held as follows:
Section 364A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax Jabalpur vs M/S Khemchand Motilal Jain Tobacco Ltd on 23 August, 2011
17. The Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khemchand
Motilal Jain, P. Ltd. 340 ITR 99 held as follows:
Acit, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs Jindal Saw Ltd., Delhi on 21 December, 2021
16. The Delhi 'I' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Jindal
Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTJ 228 (Del) held as follows:
1