Nabadwip Chandra Roy v. CIT

44 ITR 591Reported decision1962#15921 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Nabadwip Chandra Roy v. CIT

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

…such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor). (iii) The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ram Narain Goel [1997] 92 Taxman 259; Hon'ble Assam High Court in the case of Nabadwip Chandra Roy v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 591 (Assam) and in the case of Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) have expressed similar view that the assessee is not supposed to prove the source of source of the loans. (iv) The ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT, Vs Smt. Prem Anand (L.T.A. No. 3514/DEL/2014) held that the rule that the assessee is not required to explain source of source of…

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)

…llant-assessee is entitled for deductions of interest on loans took for business/profession , such matters have been considered by the Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of Nabadwip Chandra Roy vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 30 November, (1959) 1962 44 ITR 591 Gauhati and the same has been considered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of income Tax Vs Rajeev Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal), for your kind perusal and ready reference the relevant abstracts are reproduced here under:- “12. What is chargeable to Income Tax under Section 28 is profit and gains of business…

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)

…llant-assessee is entitled for deductions of interest on loans took for business/profession , such matters have been considered by the Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of Nabadwip Chandra Roy vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 30 November, (1959) 1962 44 ITR 591 Gauhati and the same has been considered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of income Tax Vs Rajeev Lochan Kanoria, (1994) 208 ITR 616 (Cal), for your kind perusal and ready reference the relevant abstracts are reproduced here under:- “12. What is chargeable to Income Tax under Section 28 is profit and gains of business…

SATLUJ SHIKSHA SAMITI,HARYANA vs. ACIT, HARYANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. V.M. Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 SATLUJ SHIKSHA SAMITI, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-REWARI VILLAGE BERLI KALAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PO-MOSEPUR, REWARI DISTT. REWARI, HARYANA - 123401 (PAN: AABAS8469H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. V.M. Chaurasia, CA Revenue by : Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 27.1.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 on the foll…

BHAGIRATH CHANDULAL ARYA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.931/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) फनाभ/ Shri Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Principal Commissioner of 8th Floor, Express Towers, Income Tax-18, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AADPA1498F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date o…

SH. RAJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…was therefore justified in holding that interest payment could not be disallowed as per provisions of s.361(1)(iii) – India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (S.C.); State of Madras vs. GJ Coelbo (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC), Nabadwip Chandra Roy vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam), CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd. (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC) and P.Krishna Menon vs. CIT 35 ITR 48 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. P.Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) distinguished.” 7.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panaji Goa vs. Phil Corpn. Ltd. 244 CTR 526 (Bom.) held as follows : “Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act – Interes…

Nabadwip Chandra Roy v. CIT (44 ITR 591) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax