Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 1 March, 2011
Therefore, there is not material before us to accept or discard the
contention of ld. AR for the assessee. In the alternative submission the ld
5
ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers
AR for the submits that the assessee may be allowed netting of interest as
there is direct nexus with loan and interest earned. The coordinate bench
of Chandigarh Tribunal in Shalimar Infonet (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (supra) held
where the assessee borrowed a sum and made an FDR against which OD
(over draft facility) was obtained to repay borrowed amount and interest
earned on FDR was offered to tax, interest expenditure to be netted off
with interest income. Therefore, we accept the alternative contention of
the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow netting of interest
against the interest income offered by assessee. In the result, ground no.1
& 2 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs Acit Cc -40, Mumbai on 14 March, 2018
Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) is
not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the said case the
assessee requested the assessing officer to allow the deduction of
maintenance charges by treating the rental income as income from other
11
ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers
sources without filing revised return of income. Therefore, the facts of
this case are entirely different. In the result this ground of appeal is
allowed.
Section 24 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 8 July, 1997
In support of his submission, the ld. DR for the
Revenue relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT
4
ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers
v. Amritaben R. Shah (238 ITR 777) (Bom), decision of Supreme Court
in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers vs. CIT (227 ITR 172 (SC).
Section 44AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sicom Investment & Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai on 31 May, 2018
In support of his
submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that Mumbai Tribunal in
Premiums Investments Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 4879/M/2012
dated 13.05.2015 held that even if no business is carried out, the expenses
incurred to maintain corporate entity has to be allowed as deduction. On
6
ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers
the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the authorities
below.
Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs Ito on 31 August, 2005
In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied
upon the decision of Tribunal of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483
(Mum), Realty Finance & Leasing P. Ltd. vs. ITO 5 SOT 348 (Mum) and
Ultima Search vs. ACIT [2016] 75 taxman.com 205 and DCIT vs. Yogen
D. Sanghavi ITA No. 466 Mum 2014 dated 01.11.2017. In alternative
submission the ld AR for the assessee submits that notional deduction
@30% allowable under section 24(a) has to be allowed on addition of Rs.
13,52,699/- in the receipt of rent.
Dcit 24(2), Mumbai vs Yogen D. Sanghvi, Mumbai on 1 November, 2017
13. Further, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Yogen D Sanghvi
(supra) while relying on the decision of Sharmila Tagore (supra) held that
the non-occupancy charges are deductable expenses from the rental
income. Therefore, considering various decision of the Tribunal the
assessing officer is directed to allow the maintenance charges of Rs. Rs.
13,55,699/-, from the annual letting values of the property. The case law
relied by ld DR in Peepul Tree Properties (P.)