CIT, Mysore v. Lakshmamma

URETEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Uretek India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O-Rohit Malik & Associates, Circle-27(1), 1212A, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaacu9168L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 Order

…es not get away with a double benefit once by way of deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction. In CIT, Lakshmamma, (1964) 52 ITR 789 Hegde, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Mysore High Court observed that Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is the Mysore V. fore-runner of Section 41(1) of the present Act, was introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1955 to get over the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 183 holding that remis…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…away with a double benefit once by way of deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction. In CIT, Mysore v. Lakshmamma, (1964) 52 ITR 789 Hegde, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Mysore High Court observed that Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is the fore-runner of Section 41(1) of the present Act, was introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1955 to get over the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 183 holding that remission of a…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…away with a double benefit once by way of deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction. In CIT, Mysore v. Lakshmamma, (1964) 52 ITR 789 Hegde, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Mysore High Court observed that Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is the fore-runner of Section 41(1) of the present Act, was introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1955 to get over the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 183 holding that remission of a…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…with a double benefit once by way of deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction. In CIT, Mysore v. Lakshmamma, (1964) 52 ITR 789 Hegde, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Mysore High Court observed that Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is the fore-runner of Section 41(1) of the present Act, was introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1955 to get over the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 183 holding that remission…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

…with a double benefit once by way of deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction. In CIT, Mysore v. Lakshmamma, (1964) 52 ITR 789 Hegde, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Mysore High Court observed that Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is the fore-runner of Section 41(1) of the present Act, was introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1955 to get over the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 183 holding that remission…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

…with a double benefit once by way of deduction in an earlier assessment year and again by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in a later year with reference to the liability earlier allowed as a deduction. In CIT, Mysore v. Lakshmamma, (1964) 52 ITR 789 Hegde, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Mysore High Court observed that Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which is the fore-runner of Section 41(1) of the present Act, was introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1955 to get over the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 183 holding that remission…