Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.49 seconds)
Anil Ltd. (Formerly Anil Products ... vs The Dy.Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 May, 2023 cites

Cit vs Gujarat Mineral Development ... on 30 September, 1997

Next case law (2013) 42 taxmann.com 142 (Guj) CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation is an admission order after framing substantial question of law wherein the main case is-still pending for final disposal. We observe that this latter order does not settle a ratio. We take into account above stated discussions, relevant facts and case law to conclude that both the lower authorities have wrongly disallowed assessee's claim or prior period expenditure. The same stands deleted. This first substantive ground is treated as allowed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992

In entire process, appellant has claimed that it has produced biological agents and deduction u/s.80JJA simply state that appellant should produce or manufacture biological agents and AO has not disproved the contention of appellant that items manufactured by appellant are not biological agents. Appellant has also relied on Circular no. 772 dated 23/12/1998 wherein intention of introducing provisions of section 80JJA has been explained, it has been categorically stated that section is introduced to promote activities like recycling of waste which could in turn be converted into useful resources. The activities carried out by appellant as stated herein above clearly suggest that it has produced biological agents which are rich in nutritional value and same is generated out of biodegradable waste hence profit and gains earned form such process is entitled to deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act. Appellant has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 wherein it was held that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 590 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 February, 2015

"12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusing the Balance sheet, we find that there is no change in investments at the year under as at 31st March, 2007 and as at 31st March 2008 meaning thereby that prima facie no new investments have been made by the Appellant during the year. Further on perusing the Balances sheet as at 31st 8 ITA No 245/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 March 2008 we find that the 11 ITA Nos. 1705, 2174& 2175/Ahd/2016 & 858/Ahd/2017- Assessee: Anil Limited share holders fund comprising of Share capital and reserves and surplus were to the extent of Rs.1.49 crores and during the year Appellant has also earned profit after tax of Rs.60.39 lacs meaning that the availability of interest free funds with Appellant at the year-end were in excess of investments. From the details of other income placed on record, it is seen that during the year dividend earned by the Appellant is of Rs.20,498/- and the disallowance made by A.O u/s 14A is of Rs. 1,02,007/- and thus the disallowance u/s. 14A worked out by A.O is more than the tax free income. Before us, Id. D.R. has not brought any decision of Tribunal or High Court on record to controvert the submissions made by Id. A.R that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be more than tax free income. On the other hand, while dictating the order, we have come across the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No.117 of 2015 decided on 25.02.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 501 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 Next