Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
 
 

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 79

 

Income Tax

Cases for Section: 79

Advanced Search options

Showing 21 to 35 of 50 Records
 

2006 (7) TMI 521 - ITAT MUMBAI

Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cir. 40, Mumbai

Business disallowance, Dividend income, Losses - Carry forward and set-off of, in case of certain companies ......

........... it means that the same has been utilized for business purposes and the interest payments against the same are allowable deductions under section 36(1)(iii). 11.2 After considering the observations of the CIT(A) and the order of the Assessing Officer, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) as the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that in the impugned assessment the Assessing Officer has himself verified and has found that the interest bearing fund has not been utilized for giving the interest-free advances. Once it is found that interest bearing funds were not utilized for giving interest-free advances then it has to be taken that the fund has been utilized for business purposes and deduction is allowable. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the department is dismissed.

2005 (6) TMI 230 - ITAT DELHI-E

Vam Organic Chemicals Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Bonus or commission, Business expenditure, Carry Forward And Set Off , Income escaping assessment ......

........... dinate delay in convening the annual general meeting of the company whereas the return of income was filed and the balance sheet was adopted by the AGM on30th Dec, 1996. During this period, i.e., filing of return and approval of balance sheet by AGM, a change has been made in the balance sheet and a provision of Rs. 3 lakhs was made for commission to non-executive directors. The claim was made by the assessee. company before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. For the same reasons as given in paras 14 to 16 of this order, while deciding ground No. 3 of the assessee s appeal for asst. yr. 1994-95, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in allowing deduction of commission payment to on executive directors of Rs. 3 lakhs the ground of the Revenue is rejected. 33. In the result, the assessee s appeal being ITA Nos. 138 and 139/Del/1998 are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue being ITA Nos. 987 and 3123/Del/1998 are allowed.

2004 (12) TMI 315 - ITAT DELHI-A

Shell India (P.) Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Losses ......

........... erving that in the absence of the said details furnished by the assessee company before the Assessing Officer, the possibility of non-business expenditure involved therein could not be ruled out. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee, however, has filed a statement giving details of foreign travels such as name of the employee undertaking the foreign travel, country visited, duration of visit, purpose of visit etc. Since these details were not filed by the assessee company either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT(A), we deem it just and proper to give an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. This issue is, therefore, restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the details of foreign travel filed by the assessee and to quantify the disallowance after such verification. Ground No. 4 of the assessee s appeal is, accordingly, treated as allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

1997 (1) TMI 73 - SUPREME Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Concord Industries Ltd.

Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off ......

........... n and development rebate ? We have heard Shri Ranbir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, in support of the appeal. One of the conditions for the applicability of section 79 is that there should be a change in the shareholding of the company. Shri Ranbir Chandra has not been able to show that a finding has been recorded by any authority regarding the change of shareholding of the company for the applicability of section 79. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

1995 (12) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Acme Paper Limited

Burden Of Proof, Carry Forward And Set Off, Change In Shareholding ......

........... the view taken by the Tribunal is well founded that it was one of the first conditions to deny this benefit clause to record the finding that any change in shareholding was effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax. Since there is no positive finding that this change in shareholding was done for the purpose of avoiding or reducing the tax liability, then in that case, there was no option with the Tribunal, but to permit the set off of the losses during the assessment year 1978-79. This was permitted obviously that there was no such reason for avoiding or reducing the tax liability. The Tribunal has allowed the setoff on being satisfied that the change in shareholding was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing the tax liability. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. Hence, this reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly.

1995 (11) TMI 62 - GUJARAT High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Hindustan Marbles Limited

Carry Forward And Set Off, Industrial Company, Set Off Of Loss, Substantially Interested ......

........... in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Coming to question No. 3, we find that the Tribunal has referred to its order in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 1975-76, which has been followed by it, and while deciding the appeal out of which this reference has arisen it recorded the finding that a major portion of the assessee s income pertains to processing of marbles, and has also recorded that the Income-tax Officer himself in his order has observed that the assessee-company has got business as in the past, namely, cutting and processing of marble slabs. On the aforesaid premises and more particularly in view of the absence of any material showing that the assessee was engaged in any other business, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly come to the finding that the assessee is an industrial company and has to be charged to tax at the rate applicable to the industrial company. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

1995 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Shri Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd.

Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that in applying section 79 of the Act, only the business loss should be taken into account and not the unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate, is erroneous in law - Held, no, because when s. 79 ......

1994 (12) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Chapparai Transport Private Limited

Change In Shareholding, Substantially Interested, Tax Liability, Unabsorbed Depreciation ......

........... eciation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further held that the unabsorbed depreciation should be given the same treatment as that of the current depreciation as per section 32(2) of the Act. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The question of carry forward of the loss of the earlier years was decided in favour of the assessee applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in Italindia Cotton Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 58. Subsequently, the said decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in CIT v. Italindia Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 1988 174 ITR 160. So also, the question of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to future years is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in CIT v. Concord Industries Ltd. 1979 119 ITR 458. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.

1994 (3) TMI 123 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A

NOFELOY PLASMOLD (P) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

- ......

........... he year in question and was not claimed in the previous year, the learned ITO should have allowed this and accordingly this ground is allowed and the ITO is directed to allow this amount as claimed by the assessee. 22. The last ground No. 5 relates to a disallowance of Rs. 8,211 by ITO being interest paid to the G.S.F.C. Term Loan. According to AO the assessee was fully knowing that the liability of this term loan should have been claimed in the year of accrual and once he has not claimed in the relevant year, it is not allowable during this year. This ground of the assessee is not tenable in view of the fact that assessee was maintaining a/c on mercantile basis and he must have been aware of his liability accruing on the term loan obtained from the G.S.F.C. and should have claimed in the year of accrual. Accordingly there is no force in this ground and reasonings of the authorities below is upheld. 23. The result of the above is that the appeal of assessee is party allowed.

1993 (9) TMI 51 - GUJARAT High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Hindustan Marbles Private Limited

Carry Forward And Set Off, Change In Shareholding, Set Off Of Loss, Substantially Interested ......

........... decision of this court in the case of Shri Subhlaxmi Mills Ltd. 1983 143 ITR 863 which has been relied on by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, in our view, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 79 of the Act were not attracted in the instant case because the shares of the company were transferred in 1970 while the relevant assessment year is 1975-76 and for that there was no change in the previous year. Further, for the relevant year, i.e., 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer was convinced that the change in the shareholding was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax. Hence, the assessee-company was entitled to set-off of carried forward business losses of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. In the result, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

1993 (8) TMI 14 - GUJARAT High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Ahmedabad Flexible Tube Manufacturing Co. Limited

Carry Forward And Set Off, Change In Shareholding, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Liability To Tax, Unabsorbed Depreciation ......

........... is entitled to the benefit of the provisions relating to carry forward and set-off of losses. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, we have already stated above that the Tribunal has, as a matter of fact, found that at the time when the Shah family acquired the shares that was not done with the motive of reducing the tax liability of the assessee. That being a finding of fact, we have to accept it and, obviously, the question which is now referred to us will have to be answered in the context of the facts as found by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has found that the acquisition of shares was not with a view to reduce or avoid any tax liability, the disqualification contemplated by section 79 was, therefore, not attracted in this case and the Tribunal was right in taking that view. For the reasons stated above, we decline to answer question No. 1. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.

1992 (8) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus UP. Poorvanchal Vikas Nigam

Company, Loss ......

........... pure finding of fact. The assessee-company having clearly established the conditions of clause (b) of section 79 to the satisfaction of the Appellate Tribunal, it was rightly held by the Tribunal that the benefit of set off could not be denied to the assessee-company, as section 79 never intended to hit companies which effected change in the share holding, without any intention to avoid or reduce their tax liability. For the above reasons, we answer the first part of the question referred to this court in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No answer need be given on the second part of the question reproducing the reasoning of the Tribunal, which is of no consequence, inasmuch as the Tribunal itself further recorded a finding of fact that the change in the shareholding was per se bona fide and that the case of the assessee-company is fully covered by the exception as stated in clause (b) of section 79 of the Act. No order as to costs.

1990 (2) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA High Court

Karala Valley Tea Co. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Carry Forward And Set Off In Private Company, Company, Loss ......

........... to year which could not be ignored. In our view, both the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal were wholly wrong in holding that the change of shareholding of Guha Roy Group to Mehra Group was effected with a view to avoiding or reducing the tax liability. In view of the fact that, in view of the financial difficulties, the company was transferred to Mehra Group which was the creditor of the company for about Rs. 25 lakhs. When the creditor company came forward and purchased the controlling interest from the Guha Roy Group, it cannot be said to be a case of not a bona fide commercial transaction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that there is no intention to reduce or avoid tax liability. In view of the above, questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to answer questions Nos. 1 and 4. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J. -I agree.

1989 (9) TMI 35 - KERALA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Malabar Trading Corporation Pvt. Limited

Burden Of Proof, Closely Held Company, Loss ......

........... , it was for the assessee to show that clause (b) is attracted. The matter should be approached from that perspective or angle. The Tribunal has failed to approach the question from that angle. We are of the view that the Tribunal erred in law in coming to the conclusion which it did, based on the above erroneous approach of the question involved. In this view of the matter, we decline to answer the question referred to us but at the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to its file and decide the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Italindia Cotton Co. P. Ltd. s case 1988 174 ITR 160, particularly bearing in mind the observations contained in page 165, extracted hereinabove. It is open to the parties to lead fresh material to substantiate their pleas. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

1989 (7) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court

Metro Theatre Calcutta Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Closely Held Company, Loss ......

........... benefit is available notwithstanding the change in the shareholding in the previous year if the change was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax. The assessee has shown that the change was effected for business and commercial reasons and not in order that the tax liability may be avoided or reduced. The finding of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had not been challenged before us. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found on facts that there is no question of any Indian tax liability in view of the losses suffered by the non-resident companies and, accordingly, the Income-tax Officer has not made out any case whatsoever for invoking the provisions of section 79(b) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer these questions, referred at the instance of the Revenue, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.

 
   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new




© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.