DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited

159 TTJ 196Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19348 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 80lasection 2(19aa)section 80lsection 80jsection 28(iv)short deduction of taxdeduction u/s 80iasection 41(1)section 9(1)(vii)section 17section 41section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited

M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 207/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…herefore, the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The assessee has placed reliance on the order of the Delhi Tribunal in DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited reported in 159 TTJ 196, which is specifically dealing with the forfeiture of the application money received on account of share warrant. It was held by the Tribunal that the same is not taxable considering the basic nature of receipt, which is on capital account. Similar view was held by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Graviss Hospitality Limited v. DCIT in ITA…

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1957/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…herefore, the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The assessee has placed reliance on the order of the Delhi Tribunal in DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited reported in 159 TTJ 196, which is specifically dealing with the forfeiture of the application money received on account of share warrant. It was held by the Tribunal that the same is not taxable considering the basic nature of receipt, which is on capital account. Similar view was held by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Graviss Hospitality Limited v. DCIT in ITA…

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1956/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…herefore, the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The assessee has placed reliance on the order of the Delhi Tribunal in DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited reported in 159 TTJ 196, which is specifically dealing with the forfeiture of the application money received on account of share warrant. It was held by the Tribunal that the same is not taxable considering the basic nature of receipt, which is on capital account. Similar view was held by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Graviss Hospitality Limited v. DCIT in ITA…

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1955/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…herefore, the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The assessee has placed reliance on the order of the Delhi Tribunal in DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited reported in 159 TTJ 196, which is specifically dealing with the forfeiture of the application money received on account of share warrant. It was held by the Tribunal that the same is not taxable considering the basic nature of receipt, which is on capital account. Similar view was held by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Graviss Hospitality Limited v. DCIT in ITA…

DCIT v. CNB Finwiz Limited (159 TTJ 196) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax