← All Phrases

“Section 94(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 94Section 94(4)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 94(4) is CIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd. (199 ITR 94), cited in 46 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 94(4)

CIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd.
199 ITR 94 · 1993 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a company for the purpose of its business, including expenses to fulfill statutory legal obligations or those related to an erstwhile business post-transfer, is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act.

Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Central
94 ITD 411 · 2005 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

For availing deduction under section 80-IA, the 'infrastructure facility' does not necessarily need to be owned by the assessee. The assessee was held to be a developer, eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd.
233 CTR 42 · 2010 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A requires a proximate cause establishing the relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income. The expenditure must have a real, dominant, and immediate relationship with income not forming part of the total income.

Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.
334 ITR 413 · 2011 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The court examines a transaction involving the purchase and sale of UTI units with a short holding period, highlighting the cum-dividend purchase in relation to a booking closing date.

Judgments citing Section 94(4)

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 69C

P a g e | 1 Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani Vs. The ACIT-22(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL