A.W. Figgis And Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

256 ITR 268High Court2003#17482 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing A.W. Figgis And Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARSHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

ITA 1649/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 69

…in this case and reliance was placed by him on the following judgments: (i)CESC Ldt. Vs. CIT in ITA No.82/110/83/84 of 2004/2005 (ii) Kerala State Electricity Board vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 329 ITR 91 (iii) A.W. Figgis & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2003) 256 ITR 268 (iv) CIT vs Ovira Logistics Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2015) 58 taxmann.com 206 33. It was further submitted by Ld. Counsel that the credit for the similar amount was granted by the AO in the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2007- 08 copy of the assessment order is placed in paper book at page no.161 to 175 on our attention has been drawn on page no.…

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELCTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI

ITA 3559/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3559/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri H. N. Sinha, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

…this case and reliance was placed by him on the following judgments: (i)CESC Ldt. Vs. CIT in ITA No.82/110/83/84 of 2004/2005 (ii) Kerala State Electricity Board vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 329 ITR 91 iii) A.W. Figgis & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2003) 256 ITR 268 CO No. 160/Mum/2014 Maharashtra State Electricity Board, (iv) CIT vs Ovira Logistics Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2015) 58 taxmann.com 206 33. It was further submitted by Ld. Counsel that the credit for the similar amount was granted by the AO in the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2007-08 copy of the assessment order is placed in paper book at page…

KANKANI CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.,,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, this addition is also deleted

ITA 2023/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

Section 250Section 43BSection 68

…amount as expenditure during the year. When no expenditure has been claimed, the question of disallowance u/s 43B of the Act, does not arise as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2002 256 ITR 268 Cal. Thus, this addition is deleted. 6. Coming to the addition of sundry creditors, I find that the first amount in dispute is liability of Rs.1,06,737/-, payable to Shri Ananta Das, which is a carry forward balance from the earlier year. As the credit did not arise during the year, no addition u/s 68 of the Act, can be made in this year. Hence…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELDYNE ELECTRO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 96/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…t materials on record. It is observed that a similar view as taken by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on this issue in the case of India Carbon Ltd. (supra) has been taken by Hon'ble Calcutta jurisdictional High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis And Co. vs. CIT 256 ITR 268 (Cal) by holding that Sec. 43B can be applied only on tax or duty which has been claimed as expenditure, but the same remains unpaid on the due date. While arriving at this decision, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has taken into consideration certain case laws relevant to the point including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHOL BROS COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2759/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Him Found That An Amount Of Rs.39.24 Lacs & Rs. 11.87 Lacs Towards Sales Tax Liability & Vat Were Not Paid On Or Before The Specified Date. For Non Submission Of Any Evidence Or Explanation For Such Payment, The Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 145A R.W.S 43B Of The Act Added The Sum Of Rs. 51,11,000/- (Rs.39.24 Lacs + Rs.11.87 Lacs) Being Outstanding Sales Tax & Vat Liability To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 145Section 145ASection 43B

…dditional condition for allowance of deductions otherwise admissible under the other provisions of the Act [ CIT v. Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 54, 59 (Ker). When section 43B can be applied? In the case of A.W Figgis & Co. Ltd v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 268, 272 (Cal)], it has been held that from a careful perusal of the provisions made in section 43B, it can be said that section 43B can be applied only when the tax or duty has been claimed as expenditure but the said tax or duty had not been paid. In that view of the matter, where, admittedly, the appellant has not claimed any amount by way of sale…