CIT v. Lalsons Enterprises

324 ITR 426High Court2010#15626 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Lalsons Enterprises

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Subramanya Constructions

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

ITA/398/2015HC Karnataka07 Apr 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 260Section 260A

…s to Assessment Year 2009-10. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on 'CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD.', (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. MICROLABS LTD', (2016) 383 ITR 490 (KAR.), 'CIT VS. LALSONS ENTERPRISES', (2010) 324 ITR 426 (DEL), 'KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.318 OF 2016 AND 'DCIT VS. M/S 9 QUEST GLOBAL ENG. SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.33/2015. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue involved in the appeals filed by the revenue is whether the trib…

Pr, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Subramanya Constructions

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

ITA/399/2015HC Karnataka07 Apr 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 260Section 260A

…s to Assessment Year 2009-10. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on 'CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD.', (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. MICROLABS LTD', (2016) 383 ITR 490 (KAR.), 'CIT VS. LALSONS ENTERPRISES', (2010) 324 ITR 426 (DEL), 'KODAGU DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.318 OF 2016 AND 'DCIT VS. M/S 9 QUEST GLOBAL ENG. SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.33/2015. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue involved in the appeals filed by the revenue is whether the trib…

Shri Kushal Kumar Lunawat, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh (CIT)
Section 132(4)

…engaged by the Department at the time of search. It is also established law that no addition can be made when there is no difference in quantity of the stock. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (1) CIT Vs. Lalsons Enterprises (2010) 324 ITR 426 (Del): No addition can be made when there is no difference in quantitative terms. (in appellant’s case there is no difference in quantity of stock as per net weight i.e. without packing material) (2) Voltamp Tranformers Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010)327 ITR 360 (Guj), AO has limited power to change valuation of closing stock more so when there is no evidenc…

Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6080/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…anding was only of Rs. 6.16 crores. The learned counsel in support of the contention that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lalsons Enterprises (2010) 324 ITR 426 (Del). The learned counsel further submitted that the financial institution/Banks can only provide funds to the company for the purpose of business and thus the advancement of fund for the purpose of the business cannot be ruled out. 5.9 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the decision o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…mon factor whether the monies given by the assessee or received by the assessee from the said sister concern, it is found that an identical question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Lalsons Enterprises (2010) 324 ITR 426 (Delhi) wherein, their Lordships expressed the considered view that whether mutual accommodations by sister concerns, by way of interest free funds, can be said to be commercially expedient or not, is essentially a question of fact, which in the said case was decided in favor of assessee by the Tribunal. It is thus clear that on charging of inter…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…mon factor whether the monies given by the assessee or received by the assessee from the said sister concern, it is found that an identical question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Lalsons Enterprises (2010) 324 ITR 426 (Delhi) wherein, their Lordships expressed the considered view that whether mutual accommodations by sister concerns, by way of interest free funds, can be said to be commercially expedient or not, is essentially a question of fact, which in the said case was decided in favor of assessee by the Tribunal. It is thus clear that on charging of inter…

CIT v. Lalsons Enterprises (324 ITR 426) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax