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

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs (Delhi High Court)

CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

In Goetze v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction by way of a letter filed before the AO without filing a revised return. However, this judgement is limited to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal to entertain the claim by way of an additional ground.

See Articles discussing the law here and here.

Related Judgements

  1. Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    While damages or penalty which are compensatory in nature are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, damages which are penal in nature and in respect of infraction of law are not allowable as a business expenditure. Amounts … Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P &…
  2. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›
  3. New Delhi Auto vs. JCIT (Delhi High Court) 

    The consequences arising out of invoking Chapter XIV-B of the Act are drastic and draconian. The accounts of the assessee may be re-opened for ten years and not only a legal presumption is raised against the assessee but the burden shifts on the assessee to show that it did…
  4. CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court) 

    The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.Read more ›
  5. Valvoline Cummins vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 

    In accordance with Instruction No.96 dated 21st August, 1969 issued by the CBDT where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute had to be held in abeyance till the decision on…