CIT v. Sakthi Finance

256 ITR 488High Court#24027 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234BSection 35DSection 37Section 40(a)(i)Section 80-O

Judgments citing CIT v. Sakthi Finance

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…e, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the expenditure had been incurred not for introduction of any capital but for the purpose of reduction of share capital, by relying on the decision of CIT v. Sakthi Finance [256 ITR 488 (Mad)] that the expenditure incurred Page No.| 57 ITA NO.4236 & 4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited after the commencement of business for increase in share capital is not to be allowed under section 35D. By relying on the above said logic and keeping in view the circumstances he held that basically the expenditure has been inc…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…e, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the expenditure had been incurred not for introduction of any capital but for the purpose of reduction of share capital, by relying on the decision of CIT v. Sakthi Finance [256 ITR 488 (Mad)] that the expenditure incurred Page No.| 57 ITA NO.4236 & 4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited after the commencement of business for increase in share capital is not to be allowed under section 35D. By relying on the above said logic and keeping in view the circumstances he held that basically the expenditure has been inc…

Horizon Cuntry Wide Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6328/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 35DSection 56

…iminary expenses of ` 34,100/-, assessee claimed 1/5th of share issue expenses amounting to ` 95,45,587/- u/s. 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Finance Ltd. (256 ITR 488), held that the amount spent for increasing the share capital does not qualify for deduction u/s. 35D of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed claim of ` 95,45,587/- made by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 5. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The learned CIT(A) has given finding that the asse…

CIT v. Sakthi Finance (256 ITR 488) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax