High Courts (CIT v. UP Asbestos Ltd.

226 ITR 220High Court1997#10393 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Also reported as

260 CTR 194

Judgments citing High Courts (CIT v. UP Asbestos Ltd.

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

…an and dictate to him how he should run his business. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions namely, CIT v. Kohinoor Paper Products [1997] 92 I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 12 Taxman 316/226 ITR 220 (MP), Dinesh Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 254 ITR 673 (Guj). Therefore, the disallowance of expensesamount of Rs. 32,995/- is quashed. ITA 324/Asr/2019 11. Ground No. 3, Disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii): In argument ld. Counsel placed that the Appellant Company has purchased goods for Rs.4.22 Crore in AY 14-15. Ltd. for purchase of material for Appellant &…

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

…an and dictate to him how he should run his business. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions namely, CIT v. Kohinoor Paper Products [1997] 92 I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 12 Taxman 316/226 ITR 220 (MP), Dinesh Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 254 ITR 673 (Guj). Therefore, the disallowance of expensesamount of Rs. 32,995/- is quashed. ITA 324/Asr/2019 11. Ground No. 3, Disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii): In argument ld. Counsel placed that the Appellant Company has purchased goods for Rs.4.22 Crore in AY 14-15. Ltd. for purchase of material for Appellant &…

SNEHAL MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 385/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Snehal Mahendrakumar Shah Vs. Dcit, Cir.4(2) 1-B, Avantika Society Ahmedabad. Nr.Naranpura Railway Crossing Opp: Sbi, Narangpura Ahmedabad Pan : Acps 5850 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.1.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2015-16. 2. Sole Issue In The Present Appeals Relates To Claim Of Education Expenses Of The Daughter Of The Assessee, Which Was Denied By The Authorities Below Holding The Same To Be Personal In Nature & Alternatively Capital In Nature.

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2015-16 Snehal Mahendrakumar Shah Vs. DCIT, Cir.4(2) 1-B, Avantika Society Ahmedabad. Nr.Naranpura Railway Crossing Opp: SBI, Narangpura Ahmedabad PAN : ACPS 5850 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri…

MESERS HOTEL GRAND MUMTAZ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA441/Asr/2018 is allowed

ITA 441/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37

…. It has also been held that it is not for the AO to step into the shoes of a businessman and dictate to him how he should run his business. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions namely, CIT v. Kohinoor Paper Products [1997] 92 Taxman 316/226 ITR 220 (MP), Mallige Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 298/234 Taxman 253/375 ITR 522 (Kar.), Kostub Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 123/223 Taxman 463/365 ITR 436 (Delhi), CIT v. Naidunia News & Networking (P.) Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 422/210 Taxman 73 (MP), Hindustan Hosiery Industries v. First ITO [1983] 5…

SOUJANYA COLOR PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, MUMBAI

ITA 2041/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2041/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral D. Sejpal, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2041/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT Circle-3 Soujanya Color Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Room No. 2, B ‘Wing, 6th C-35/36, TTC Industrial floor, Ashar IT Park, Area, MIDC Pawane, Vs. Road, No. L6 Z, Wagle Navi Mumbai-400 705 Estate , Thane-400 604 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAMCS0859G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Hiral D. Sejpal, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.01.2020…

THIRD EYE ESTATE (I) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6434/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle -15(3)(2) B-3301-3302, Oberoi Springs, 4Th Floor, 451 Aayakar Bhavan, Off Link Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 45

…of its business. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: Sr. No. Particulars 1. Sakal Paper pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT 114 ITR 265 (Bom) 2. Mallige Medical Centre P. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 375 ITR 522 (Karn) 3. CIT Vs. Kohinoor Paper Products 226 ITR 220 4. J.B. Addvani & Co. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 92 TTJ 175 (Mum) Also, as observed by us hereinabove, merely for the reason that the aforesaid higher education of the director of the assessee company viz. Mr. Uday Singh would also benefit the two other companies in which too he was a director, in our considered view, cannot form a basis for P a g e | 10 ITA…

M/S. SHREE LAKHI METALS AND STEELS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed partly in above terms

ITA 523/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara) I.T.A No. 523/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shree Lakhi Metals & Steels Pvt. Ltd.....…..……………….…...……..…..………….....….....Appellant 3Rd Floor 8C, Maharshi Devendra Road Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aakcs 8597 F] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 3, Kolkata......................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 17Th, 2019 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Kolkata Passed In Case No. F. No. Pr. Cit- 3/Hqrs.-3/Kol/U/S263/Shree Lakhi Metals & Steel Pvt. Ltd./2017-18, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…matter any officer of any concern, can be treated to be a business expenditure so as to get the deduction under Section 37 of the said Act. In this context, Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Commisisoner of Income-Tax Vs.Kohinoor Paper Pdocuts (reported in 226 ITR 220) has held that any expenditure or any expenses incurred for education and training of a partner of a partnership firm is a business expenditure and this can be considered as allowable deduction under Section 37 of the said Act. In that case one of the three partners of the assessee firm at the time of constitution of the firm was a student of the…

GEO CONNECT LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/797/2017HC Delhi21 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 254(2)Section 37

…ncluding the ITAT. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kostub Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 365 ITR 436 (Del) as well as the decisions of other High Courts (CIT vs. UP Asbestos Ltd. 260 CTR 194 (all); CIT vs. Kohinoor Paper Product 226 ITR 220 (MP); CIT vs. Naidunia News and Networking (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 73 (MP); CIT vs. Ras Information Technologies (P) Ltd. 238 CTR 76 (Kar) and Mallige Medical Centre (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT 375 ITR 522 (Kar). ITA 797/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 4 This Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether in a given case,…

GEO CONNECT LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/799/2017HC Delhi21 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 254(2)Section 37

…ncluding the ITAT. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kostub Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 365 ITR 436 (Del) as well as the decisions of other High Courts (CIT vs. UP Asbestos Ltd. 260 CTR 194 (all); CIT vs. Kohinoor Paper Product 226 ITR 220 (MP); CIT vs. Naidunia News and Networking (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 73 (MP); CIT vs. Ras Information Technologies (P) Ltd. 238 CTR 76 (Kar) and Mallige Medical Centre (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT 375 ITR 522 (Kar). ITA 797/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 4 This Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether in a given case,…

GEO CONNECT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/865/2017HC Delhi21 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 254(2)Section 37

…ncluding the ITAT. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kostub Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 365 ITR 436 (Del) as well as the decisions of other High Courts (CIT vs. UP Asbestos Ltd. 260 CTR 194 (all); CIT vs. Kohinoor Paper Product 226 ITR 220 (MP); CIT vs. Naidunia News and Networking (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 73 (MP); CIT vs. Ras Information Technologies (P) Ltd. 238 CTR 76 (Kar) and Mallige Medical Centre (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT 375 ITR 522 (Kar). ITA 797/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 4 This Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether in a given case,…

High Courts (CIT v. UP Asbestos Ltd. (226 ITR 220) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax