Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Acit Cc-6, New Delhi vs Assessee on 12 June, 2000 cites

Eastern Investments Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 4 May, 1951

7. Before the CIT(A) the assessee made similar arguments. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding observed that the AO had relied on clauses (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) of the MOU to arrive at his conclusion. Rest of other clauses i.e. (i), (ii), (vii), (viii), (ix) & (x) were totally ignored by the AO and had drawn conclusion on the basis of points which he has mentioned in the assessment order. Clause (ii) clearly states that the second party agrees to take the entire development work project including the work done, in progress and also the transactions of advances etc. which are not in a final stage from the first party in a phased manner by 31st March, 1996. Further clause (vii) of MOU also stated that the assessee shall provide all necessary assistance/information to the second party as regards the work done, work in progress and works to be executed in respect of the said project to the second party. Since the project was handed over in phased manner during the period of two years the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 20 ITR 1 (SC); J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 69 ITR 782; Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 86 ITR 11 and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. 7 CIT, 69 ITR 379. The learned CIT(A) finally concluded that the observation of the AO was not in conformity with the Memorandum of Understanding and the facts of the case. The expenditure made by the assessee was the business exigency and directly related to the transfer of project brought over in two years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - V Bose - Full Document

J.R. Patel And Sons Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 19 October, 1962

7. Before the CIT(A) the assessee made similar arguments. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding observed that the AO had relied on clauses (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) of the MOU to arrive at his conclusion. Rest of other clauses i.e. (i), (ii), (vii), (viii), (ix) & (x) were totally ignored by the AO and had drawn conclusion on the basis of points which he has mentioned in the assessment order. Clause (ii) clearly states that the second party agrees to take the entire development work project including the work done, in progress and also the transactions of advances etc. which are not in a final stage from the first party in a phased manner by 31st March, 1996. Further clause (vii) of MOU also stated that the assessee shall provide all necessary assistance/information to the second party as regards the work done, work in progress and works to be executed in respect of the said project to the second party. Since the project was handed over in phased manner during the period of two years the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 20 ITR 1 (SC); J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 69 ITR 782; Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 86 ITR 11 and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. 7 CIT, 69 ITR 379. The learned CIT(A) finally concluded that the observation of the AO was not in conformity with the Memorandum of Understanding and the facts of the case. The expenditure made by the assessee was the business exigency and directly related to the transfer of project brought over in two years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Aluminium Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972

7. Before the CIT(A) the assessee made similar arguments. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding observed that the AO had relied on clauses (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) of the MOU to arrive at his conclusion. Rest of other clauses i.e. (i), (ii), (vii), (viii), (ix) & (x) were totally ignored by the AO and had drawn conclusion on the basis of points which he has mentioned in the assessment order. Clause (ii) clearly states that the second party agrees to take the entire development work project including the work done, in progress and also the transactions of advances etc. which are not in a final stage from the first party in a phased manner by 31st March, 1996. Further clause (vii) of MOU also stated that the assessee shall provide all necessary assistance/information to the second party as regards the work done, work in progress and works to be executed in respect of the said project to the second party. Since the project was handed over in phased manner during the period of two years the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 20 ITR 1 (SC); J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 69 ITR 782; Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 86 ITR 11 and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. 7 CIT, 69 ITR 379. The learned CIT(A) finally concluded that the observation of the AO was not in conformity with the Memorandum of Understanding and the facts of the case. The expenditure made by the assessee was the business exigency and directly related to the transfer of project brought over in two years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 122 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 July, 1967

7. Before the CIT(A) the assessee made similar arguments. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding observed that the AO had relied on clauses (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) of the MOU to arrive at his conclusion. Rest of other clauses i.e. (i), (ii), (vii), (viii), (ix) & (x) were totally ignored by the AO and had drawn conclusion on the basis of points which he has mentioned in the assessment order. Clause (ii) clearly states that the second party agrees to take the entire development work project including the work done, in progress and also the transactions of advances etc. which are not in a final stage from the first party in a phased manner by 31st March, 1996. Further clause (vii) of MOU also stated that the assessee shall provide all necessary assistance/information to the second party as regards the work done, work in progress and works to be executed in respect of the said project to the second party. Since the project was handed over in phased manner during the period of two years the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 20 ITR 1 (SC); J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 69 ITR 782; Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 86 ITR 11 and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. 7 CIT, 69 ITR 379. The learned CIT(A) finally concluded that the observation of the AO was not in conformity with the Memorandum of Understanding and the facts of the case. The expenditure made by the assessee was the business exigency and directly related to the transfer of project brought over in two years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 94 - Full Document
1