Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 147 computation of period of sentence Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat rajkot

Master Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot

Reported in : (2001)77ITD530(Rajkot.)

..... construction or development activities will be taken on said property without informing the tribunal at the right time.10. regarding the commencement of business under the income-tax act, the ld. counsel referred to the commentary of chaturvedi and pithisaria, wherein citing the various decisions, the ld. authors have stated that the business commences as ..... to that business is not allowable. according to him, the existence of business is pre-condition for allowance of expenditure under sections 29 to 42d of the act. as the income has been assessed on the sale of dismantled material etc.which is not the business of the assessee, therefore, the claim of the assessee ..... had closed down its business long back.5. during the course of appellate proceedings the cit(a) passed an order under section 250(4) of the act for both the assessinent years.the assessing officer was required to examine the evidence relating to commencement of land development business. in his remand report the assessing .....

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Joshi Formulabs (P) Ltd. (Joshi

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot

..... the company which would be proved by increase in production and profitability in the later year. the company has foreign collaborator's as partners and under the company's act there is provision to declare the dealings with sister concern and price, etc. the transactions are placed before the board of directors and they have approved the transactions. ..... from the sister concern. therefore, he disallowed a sum of rs. 12,683 on the purchase of refills as excessive price under s. 40a(2)(b) of the act. according to the authorised representative of the appellant, the dy. cit(sr) was not correct in rejecting the explanation made by the appellant simply because the purchases were made ..... rs. 36,000 in respect of running charges of machineries, paid to another sister concern. both these disallowances have been made under s. 40a(2)(b) of the act on the ground that it is excessive and unreasonable and has been made to a sister concern. the cit(a) considered the arguments of the ao and those of .....