Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.33 seconds)Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2015
Finance Act, 2012
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 10 January, 1997
4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in
ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ballimal Navi Kishore Vs CIT reported in 224 ITR 414 (SC) in allowing the
expenditure incurred towards obtaining COS and DMS as revenue
expenditure".
M/S Apex Laboratories P. Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 22 February, 2022
Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, I.T. Appeal No.149 of 2017, vide
judgement dated 23.04.2019, has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act
cannot be more than exempt income. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned
order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. As a result, ground no.1, raised in
Revenue's appeal is dismissed."
Acit Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs Aarti Drugs Ltd, Mumbai on 28 February, 2017
"20. We have considered rival submission and perused the material available on
record. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in
ACIT Vs. Aarti Drugs Limited, in ITA No. 5526/MUM/2013, vide order dated
P a g e | 13
ITA No. 3070, 3071 & 3068/Mum/2023
A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16
Aarti Drugs Limited, Mumbai
14/01/2015, for the assessment year 2009-10 decided a similar issue in favour of the
assessee by observing as under:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
Subsequently, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee
filed additional grounds for claiming these incentives as capital receipts. The
additional grounds raised by the assessee were forwarded to the Ld. AO for the
remand report by Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the admissibility of the additional
claims. The Ld. AO relied upon to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case Goetze India Ltd. v/s CIT (2006) 157 taxmann.com 1 (SC) in support
of his proposition that the assessee could not make a fresh claim otherwise than
by filing a return or a revised return of income. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed
that the above decision applied to the assessing officer and there was no bar on
the appellate authority to admit an additional claim raised for the first time
during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, after considering the remand
report and the submissions made by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the
co-ordinate bench had already decided the issue in the previous year in ITA no.