CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd.

281 ITR 346High Court2006#1441 most cited
79

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd. · 281 ITR 346 · section 13 · section 11 · section 12 · advancement of general public utility · section 35ABB · section 37(1) · section 10B · section 14A · compensatory interest · assessment procedure

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd.

Ascendas It Park (Pune) Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 966/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.966/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ascendas It Park (Pune) Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Private Limited, Pune. Unit No.607 & 608, 6Th Floor, Amar Business Park, Survey No.105 (3), Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aafca4840E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Chandni Shah Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 31.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “Ground 1: Treating General Management Fees Paid By The Appellant To Be Capital In Nature On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action

For Appellant: Smt. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RadhasoamiSatsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of (i) CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd., 281 ITR 346 (Delhi). However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the appellant company is still in the process of developing the IT/ITES Parks and, therefore, the revenue expenditure incurred till the completion of the project should be capitalized and should add to the cost of the project. Accordingly, he denied the…

M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3796/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…rence of the A.O. is contrary to the judicial principle of consistency approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court respectively in the case of [Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and [Dalmia Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del) 4.9.6 The condition precedent for such an action by the appellant is that the loan or advance given in the ordinary course of money lending business is written off during the relevant Assessment Year. The assessee has written off the loan as bad debt in the AY 2010-11 which is not disputed by the AO. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of…