How many judgments cite CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd.?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. (129 ITR 58), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 37(1), Section 57(iii), Section 13(4), Section 13(4A), Section 132.

CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd.

129 ITR 58High Court1981#4133 most cited

What is CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning income is deductible under Section 57(iii) even if no income is actually earned. The earning of income is not a pre-condition for allowing the deduction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. · section 57(iii) · income from other sources · expenditure for earning income · deduction · commercial expediency · no income earned

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 57(iii)Section 13(4)Section 13(4A)Section 132 Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)section 57 commercial expediency capital expenditure section 37 salary section 36(1)section 36 income from other sources section 10 transfer previous year

Judgments citing CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd.

FULLERTON FINANCIAL HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(3)(1) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

…anga Properties Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 94 (Cal) (refer to Page Nos. 669 to 671 of the legal PB); • Nakodar Bus Service (P.) Ltd. v/s. CIT (1989) 179 ITR 506 (P&H) (refer to Page Nos. 672 to 673 of the legal PB). • CIT v/s. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All) (refer to Page Nos. 674 to 675 of the legal PB), • AtulBabubhai Shah v/s. JCIT [2020]116 taxmann.com 966 (Ahmedabad Trib.) (refer to Page Nos. 676 to 686 of the legal PB) 51. The only test under Article 24A(3) is whether the expenditure has been incurred for operations in Singapore. The Appellant has clearly fulfilled this requirement. Accor…

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

…eductible only if any income is made or earned. Similar view is held in the cases of “CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody”, (1978), Taxation 51 (3)-52, 115 ITR 519 (SC); CIT vs. Murli Manohar (1998) IX SITC 673 (All); CIT vs. Rampur Tirnber & Turney Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All.) 12. We have noted that the assessee had borrowed fund and invested the same for giving loan to the sister concerns from which it could earn interest income. The assessee had invested the amount by giving loan to the related concerns on which the assessee earned interest income in the earlier years. However, in the earlier years on the said…

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…es not say that the expenditure shall be deductible only if any income is made or earned (CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978), Taxation 51 (3)-52, 115 ITR 519 (SC) : CIT vs. MurliManohar (1998) IX SITC 673 (All): CIT vs. Rampur Tirnber&Turney Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All.) : CIT vs. Administrator General of Madras (1998) 142 Taxation 85 (Mad)). A similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of "CIT vs. M Ethurajan" (273 ITR 95) (Mad).) 4.6 In the assessee‟s case, assessee has made an investment in a related company, and the resultant in a form of a dividend income, interest income…

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 575/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 57

…UMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR deductible only if any income is made or earned (CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978), Taxation 51 (3)-52, 115 ITR 519 (SC) : CIT vs. Murli Manohar (1998) IX SITC 673 (All) : CIT vs. Rampur Timber & Turney Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All.) : CIT vs. Administrator General of Madras (1998) 142 Taxation 85 (Mad.). The Gujarat High Court in Padmavati Jaykrishna vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 653 has held that in order to decide whether an expenditure is a permissible deduction under section 57(iii), the nature of the expenditure must be examined. Also the Gujarat High Court in the case o…

MR. SHANMUGAM RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSEMENT CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

ITA 951/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ITA No.951/Bang/2023 Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.951/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mr. Shanmugam Ravi No.89, 90 & 91, Royal Enclave Near JNC Srirampura Village Jakkur Post Bengaluru 560 064 DCIT Vs. Assessment Circle-2(1) Bengaluru PAN NO : ADFPR5504G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sri G.S. Prashanth, A.R. Respondent by Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This…

REPRO AUTO PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 21(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2041/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrepro Auto Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 177, W-7 Lane, Sainik Farms, Ward-21(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr6510R Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 50

…ar, the aforesaid expenditure cannot be said to be incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee. The ld AR rightly placed reliance before us on the decision of the Allahabad High Court I the case of CIT Vs. Rampur Timber and Tannery Co Ltd reported in 129 ITR 58. The question raised before the Hon’ble High Court is as under:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having held that the assessee was not carrying on any business, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the entire expenses of Rs. 11,295 in the assessment year 1969-70, and Rs. 10,613 in the assessment year 1970- 71,…

GIRI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2676/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2676/Del/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Giri Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, R-23 Lg-1 & 3 Nehru Enclave Circle-10(1), New Delhi- 110019 New Delhi Pan : Aabcg2921Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2676/Del/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Giri Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, R-23 LG-1 and 3 Nehru Enclave Circle-10(1), New Delhi- 110019 New Delhi PAN : AABCG2921Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.03.2018 of CIT(A)-3…

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

…, judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Chinai & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT a reported in 206 ITR 616 was also followed and the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Rampur Timbur & Turnery Co. Ltd. as reported in 129 ITR 58 was also followed. Since in the present case, the assessee is not a company, these judgments of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. Page 23 of 24 (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chinai & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Timbur & Turnery C…

M/S GODREJ INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3163/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Godrej Investments Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 14(1)(2) M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Esplande House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai - 400020 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaacg1395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farrokh Irani Department By : Shri Ambuselvam

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Ambuselvam

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…mpany to fulfill its statutory legal obligations is allowable in any view of the matter: (a) CIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd. (199 ITR 94, Cal.) (b) CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. (185 ITR 564, Cal) (c) CIT v. Rampur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd. (129 ITR 58, All.) (d) Kulgam Holdings Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, CC - 1(1) & others. Without prejudice to the contentions of the Appellant Company that such expenses are allowable u/s. 57 of the Act, it is respectfully submitted that such expenses are not liable to be disallowed under section 14A of the Act, in view of the reasons enumerated hereunder: i) The exempt…

MR. M J ARAVIN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1510/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 48Section 57

…, judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Chinai & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT a reported in 206 ITR 616 was also followed and the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Rampur Timbur & Turnery Co. Ltd. as reported in 129 ITR 58 was also followed. Since in the present case, the assessee is not a company, these judgments of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chinai & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Timbur & Turnery Co. Ltd. (supra)…

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes (R

ITA 21/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 57

…not say that the expenditure shall be deductible only if any income is made or earned (CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978), Taxation 51 (3)-52, 115 ITR 519 (SC) : CIT vs. Murli Manohar (1998) IX SITC 673 (All) : CIT vs. Rampur Timber & Turney Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All.) : CIT vs. Administrator General of Madras (1998) 142 Taxation 85 (Mad.)). A.Y. 2014-15 Page 10 of 13 The Gujarat High Court in Padmavati Jaykrishna vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 653 has held that in order to decide whether an expenditure is a permissible deduction under section 57(iii), the nature of the expenditure must be examined. Also the G…

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1716/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-C” , BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member IT(IT)A No.1715/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(IT)A No.1716/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 Smt.Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy The Income Tax Officer No.3-65/9, Horizon, Lohithnagar (International Taxation) Vs. Mangalore. 1st Main, 2nd Cross, Ashok Nagar Post Mangalore – 575 006. PAN : AAHPZ0591Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Respondent by : Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Pronouncement: 27.4.2020 Date of Hearing : 20.02.2020 O R D E…

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1715/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 234B

AKASH GOYAL,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 234/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 234/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) Akash Goyal, 1/173-B, Bagh Farzana, Vs.. ACIT-Circle 1(1)(1), Civil Lines, Agra. Agra. PAN: ABVPG6220A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Navin Gargh, Adv. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2019 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. MEENA, A. M.: This appeal is directed by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Ap…

SHRI KAILASH CHAND SONI C/O- S.L. PODDAR & COMPANY E-3A, KANTI CHANDRA RAOD, BANI PARK, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 57

…es not say that the expenditure shall be deductible only if any income is made or earned (CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978), Taxation 51 (3)-52, 115 ITR 519 (SC) : CIT vs. MurliManohar (1998) IX SITC 673 (All): CIT vs. Rampur Tirnber&Turney Co. Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 58 (All.) : CIT vs. Administrator General of Madras (1998) 142 Taxation 85 (Mad)). There is case law RoshanSethia, Mumbai vs Assessee on 15 May, 2015 ITA NO.5860/M/2012 A.Y. 2009-10in which the ITAT, Mumbai has given decision in favor of the assessee which is similar to the present case:- Here in this case the assessee disclosed interest income of…

M/S. LAVENDER BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 254/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Soni, A.R

Section 24

…wance of expenditure for retaining the status of company viz. towards audit fee and bank charges notwithstanding absence of any income under the head ‘business income’ in view of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Timber & Tannery Co. Ltd. 129 ITR 58 (All.). Thus, Ground Nos.4 & 4.1 is allowed in part. 7. Ground No.5 concerns addition of Rs.24,475/- on account of interest. The AO noticed accrual of interest income of aforesaid amount from 26AS statement of the assessee. The learned AR for ITA No. 254/Ahd/16 [M/s. Lavender Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - the assessee has not s…

M/S. ELEL HOTELS AND INVESTMENTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Dcit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-13, New Delhi Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Acit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-03, R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Jhandewalan, New Delhi Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Central Circle-13, Investments Ltd., New Delhi R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Elel Hotels and Vs. DCIT, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-13, New Delhi Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai PAN :AAACE2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. ELEL Hotels and Vs. ACIT, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-03, R/o. Mandlik House, Mandlik Jhandewalan, New Delhi Road, Colaba, Mumbai PAN :AAACE2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Years: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. M/s. ELEL Hotels and Central Circle-13,…

DCIT 1(2)-2, MUMBAI vs. OZONELAND AGRO P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4854/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K. Sivaram and Shri Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan-DR

Section 143Section 56

…FAA had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO.He referred to the cases of Multi-Act Reality Private Ltd. (ITA/7274/Mum/2011,dated 28/08/2015), Premiums Investment And Finance Ltd. (ITA/4879/ Mum/2012,dated 13/05/2015) Rampur Timber and Turnery Co.Ltd. (129 ITR 58). 7.3.We find that the AO had made the disallowance on the ground that assessee had not carried out any business activity for the year under appeal. While making the disallowance he forgot the basic fact that assessee is a corporate entity. For maintaining the corporate status assessee has two incur certain expenditure and same could not be disall…

MR.M.J ARAVIND,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1991/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 48Section 57

…o, judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Chinai& Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT a reported in 206 ITR 616 was also followed and the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Rampur Timbur & Turnery Co. Ltd. as reported in 129 ITR 58 was also followed. Since in the present case, the assessee is not a company, these judgments of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chinai & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Timbur & Turnery Co. Ltd. (supra)…

ZANDU REALTY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Zandu Realty Limited, Dcit-8(3)(2), A-701, Wing Express Zone, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Western Express Highway, M.K. Road, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-40001 Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacz0210G

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Zandu Realty Limited, DCIT-8(3)(2), A-701, Wing Express Zone, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Western Express Highway, M.K. Road, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-40001 Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACZ0210G "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Ms. Aarti Vissanji Shri Suman Kumar-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by सुनव…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2