CIT v. Kiranbhai H Shelat & Ors.

235 ITR 635High Court1999#15387 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Kiranbhai H Shelat & Ors.

Hareshkumar L. Udeshi, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 95/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: None (Witten Submission)For Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra, Sr.DR
Section 10(14)Section 80G

…s. The same needs deletion. 4.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that the incentive bonus was allowed as deduction as expenses following the guidelines issued by the Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of Kiranbhai H. Shelat 235 ITR 635. The claim needs to be allowed. 4.3. Without prejudice, the claim of the assessee confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is allowable as per C.B.D.T' direction. 4.4 Without prejudice, the claim of the assessee confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is allowable as per Hon. Supreme Court decision in the case of Shri N.T. Bhuptani. The disallowance needs deletion. 5. T…

Bhavesh K. Kothari, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006

For Appellant: None (Witten Submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, Sr.DR
Section 10(14)Section 88

…s. The same needs deletion. 6.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that the incentive bonus was allowed as deduction as expenses following the guidelines issued by the Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of Kiranbhai H. Shelat 235 ITR 635. The claim needs to be allowed. 6.3. Without prejudice, the claim of the assessee disallowed by the Ld. CIT(A) is allowable as per C.B.D.T’ direction. 6.4 Without prejudice, the claim of the assessee confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is allowable as per Hon. Supreme Court decision in the case of Shri N.T. Bhuptani. The disallowance needs deletion. 7. T…

Shri Punit Dinesh Bhatt, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-7, Baroda

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2142/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ingh Jaggi vs. CIT SLP (Civil) No. 22350 of 2003 decided on 17.11.2003 (arising from hon'ble U.P. high court's decision in ITA No.56/2000 dated 09.05.2003) had observed that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decisions in CIT vs. Kiranbhai PI She I at (1999) 235 ITR 635 (Guj) was wrong. He thereafter framed impugned consequential re- assessment on 27.01.2015 in former assessee 's case and on 30.01.2015 in latter assessee 's cases: respectively. The C1T(A) upholds the same in his orders under challenge except to the extent (hat he has restricted conveyance expenditure disallowance (supra) to 50%. 4. Both the lea…

Shri Punit Dinesh Bhatt, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-7, Baroda

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2141/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ingh Jaggi vs. CIT SLP (Civil) No. 22350 of 2003 decided on 17.11.2003 (arising from hon'ble U.P. high court's decision in ITA No.56/2000 dated 09.05.2003) had observed that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decisions in CIT vs. Kiranbhai PI She I at (1999) 235 ITR 635 (Guj) was wrong. He thereafter framed impugned consequential re- assessment on 27.01.2015 in former assessee 's case and on 30.01.2015 in latter assessee 's cases: respectively. The C1T(A) upholds the same in his orders under challenge except to the extent (hat he has restricted conveyance expenditure disallowance (supra) to 50%. 4. Both the lea…

Shri Dharmendrasinh G. Gohil, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhavnagar

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2773/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Mr. B. R. Popat with RohanFor Respondent: Mr. Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of reopening. His case is that the issue of allowability of expenditure @30% of the incentive bonus in order to meet the corresponding expenses already stands settled in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Kiranbhai H Shelat & Ors. (1999) 235 ITR 635 (Guj) as reiterated in their lordships’ latter decision in Tax Appeal No. 1005/2005 CIT vs. Nitinbhai T. Bhupatani decided on 08.02.2006. He therefore pleads that the Assessing Officer has committed a grave illegality in relying upon hon’ble M. P. high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Gurudeo Singh Jaggi 267 ITR 763 taking a contrary view as upheld in…

Shri Dharmendrasinh G. Gohil, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhavnagar

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Mr. B. R. Popat with RohanFor Respondent: Mr. Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of reopening. His case is that the issue of allowability of expenditure @30% of the incentive bonus in order to meet the corresponding expenses already stands settled in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Kiranbhai H Shelat & Ors. (1999) 235 ITR 635 (Guj) as reiterated in their lordships’ latter decision in Tax Appeal No. 1005/2005 CIT vs. Nitinbhai T. Bhupatani decided on 08.02.2006. He therefore pleads that the Assessing Officer has committed a grave illegality in relying upon hon’ble M. P. high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Gurudeo Singh Jaggi 267 ITR 763 taking a contrary view as upheld in…

CIT v. Kiranbhai H Shelat & Ors. (235 ITR 635) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax