Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. HCL Comnet (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. HCL Comnet (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.

Note: The judgements in Echjay Forgings 251 ITR 15 (Bom), Amines & Plasticizers 296 ITR 727 (Gau) and Usha Martin 104 ITD 249 (Kol) (SB) stand impliedly approved while that in Beardsell 244 ITR 256 (Mad) stands impliedly overruled.

Related Posts:

  • In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic… Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the…
  • CIT vs. S. V. Gopala Rao (Supreme Court) The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a Circular under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act,1961. In fact, it amended the provisions contained in Rule 68B of the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which otherwise have statutory force. Such legislative provisions cannot be amended by…
  • Ramnath & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction…
  • B. L. Passi vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The wider meaning of the word “technical” would defeat the object of Section 80-O by enabling the remuneration for management or running of a foreign company to be eligible for deduction under Section 80-O. On the other hand, the narrower meaning of the word “technical” seems to be more in…
  • UOI vs. P. D. Sunny (Supreme Court) There shall be ex-parte ad-interim stay of the impugned judgment and order(s) passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and of further proceedings before the High Court(s), in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of…
  • H. S. Ramchandra Rao vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The substance of the admission is that the appellant was holding the post of Secretary of the Institution [Paramahamsa Foundation (R) Trust] until 1996 but he left the institution after new members were elected as the managing committee. That being the case, the question of appellant invoking the principle of…

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court) 

    Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  2. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  3. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›
  4. Agricultural PMC vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.
    Read more ›
  5. CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of…