Cit vs raj trading co
CIT [1987] 163 ITR 440, this court has upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) where the speculative loss was added to the commercial profit and even a revised return was filed by the assessee. The act of filing the revised return was considered not to mitigate the offence which has already been committed. cit (1993) 204 itr 355 (sc). 7. On the other hand, Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the assessee-company, submits that when the assessee has received the amount against the shares of the company on its liquidation and if there is any gain under section 46(2) , that is taxable under the head 'Capital gains'. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Raj Trading Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 16 May, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 28 ITD 307 Hyd Bench: G Santhanam, R Agarwala ORDER G. Santhanam, Accountant Member 1. These appeals are by the assessee and as common issues are involved, a consolidated order is passed for the sake of convenience. Thus the words – furnished inaccurate particulars is broader and would refer to inaccuracy which would cause under declaration or escapement of income. It may refer to particulars which should have been furnished or were required to be furnished or recorded in the books of accounts etc. (see CIT vs. Raj Trading Co. (1996) 217 ITR 208 (Raj.)
CIT vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The assessee has adduced the documentary evidences in support of the transaction in question. The identity of the purchasers of the shares was established as it was borne on the record of the Income Tax Department.
(CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (203 ITR 497(Bom)). Where the Tribunal refers to any decision not referred to in the course of arguments or in the order of lower authorities, it would render the order liable for rectification u/s. 254(2). Lakhmini Deval Das vs. ITO (84 ITR 649 (Cal.) Manoj Dyeing Co. Vs. CIT: (1995) 212 ITR 299 (Raj.); M.K. Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC); CIT Vs. State Government and the assessee enjoyed exclusive privilege of wholesale trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer in the State of Rajasthan, while in the case of RSGSML, the AO has gone on a theory that it is It is settled legal position that no penalty is leviable where two views are possible or where there are debatable issues specially where a question of law has been framed and admitted by the Hon’ble High Court as held in the case of CIT-II vs Liquid Investment and Trading Co. (ITA 240/2009) (Del.) (HC). Reliance for these propositions is placed on following decisions:- (i) CIT vs Jain Construction Co (2013) 257 CTR (Raj)/ 84 DTR (Raj) 369 Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and ALLOWABILITY OF ILLEGAL BUSINESS LOSSES. 1. Business loss is not business expenditure. It is to be noted, as held by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. S.C. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794 (SC) that business expenditure is something which comes out of the pocket of the businessman. Compensation received from builder under settlement for failure to give possession of flat within stipulated time held not capital receipts nor interest
The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj), has held as under High Court (headnote) : (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj), has held as under High Court (headnote) :
28 Aug 2019 vs. CIT (1984) 152 ITR 507 (Del.) (b) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR ( Raj.) CIT [1987] 163 ITR 440, this court has upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) where the speculative loss was added to the commercial profit and even a revised return was filed by the assessee. The act of filing the revised return was considered not to mitigate the offence which has already been committed.
Compensation received from builder under settlement for failure to give possession of flat within stipulated time held not capital receipts nor interest
concealment of income. Rajasthan High Court. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Raj Trading Co. on 14 March, 1995. Equivalent citations: 1996 217 ITR 208 Raj. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Raj Kumar Singh And Co. on 8 July, 2005 while deciding this case had followed the decision of How rah Trading Co.
25 Nov 2011 The assessee paid penalty/fine to BSE/NSE for infringement of procedural rules such as failure to maintain margins, trading beyond exposure
Manoj Dyeing Co. Vs. CIT: (1995) 212 ITR 299 (Raj.); M.K. Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC); CIT Vs. State Government and the assessee enjoyed exclusive privilege of wholesale trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer in the State of Rajasthan, while in the case of RSGSML, the AO has gone on a theory that it is It is settled legal position that no penalty is leviable where two views are possible or where there are debatable issues specially where a question of law has been framed and admitted by the Hon’ble High Court as held in the case of CIT-II vs Liquid Investment and Trading Co. (ITA 240/2009) (Del.) (HC). Reliance for these propositions is placed on following decisions:- (i) CIT vs Jain Construction Co (2013) 257 CTR (Raj)/ 84 DTR (Raj) 369 Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and ALLOWABILITY OF ILLEGAL BUSINESS LOSSES. 1. Business loss is not business expenditure. It is to be noted, as held by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. S.C. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794 (SC) that business expenditure is something which comes out of the pocket of the businessman. Compensation received from builder under settlement for failure to give possession of flat within stipulated time held not capital receipts nor interest
12 Aug 2019 vs. CIT (1984) 152 ITR 507 (Del.) (b) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR ( Raj.) Manufacturer of Celebration Balloons, Balloon Decoration Services & Advertising Balloons offered by Raj Trading Co, from Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Dept. and assessee's, both appeals should be heard together (CIT vs. CIT 100 ITR 715; Nirmal Trading Co. vs. is taxable as his individual income even if the shares in the company are held by H.U.F. (Raj Kumar Singh Hukamchandji vs. 28 Aug 2019 vs. CIT (1984) 152 ITR 507 (Del.) (b) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR ( Raj.) CIT [1987] 163 ITR 440, this court has upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) where the speculative loss was added to the commercial profit and even a revised return was filed by the assessee. The act of filing the revised return was considered not to mitigate the offence which has already been committed.