Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Chennai Metropolitan Water on 20 September, 2011

18. As already pointed out, the payee company is stated to have filed a loss return. Nevertheless, this fact needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer and if it is found to be so, the question of further recovery from the hands of the assessee company herein does not arise  vide (2007) 293 ITR 226 (Hindustan Coca Cola beverage P. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-Tax). However, as far as levy of interest is concerned, it being an automatic one, the order of the Tribunal merits to be set aside as far as this aspect of the question is concerned. Accordingly, the assessment order regarding levy of interest has to undergo necessary modification to the effect that interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act has to be calculated from the date on which tax should have been deducted to the date on which the payee should have filed its return under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, both the Tax Cases stand disposed of. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Stanes Tyre & Rubber Products Ltd. on 18 March, 1996

In view of the various decisions cited supra rendered by various High Courts wherein it was held that the Explanation brought out to r. 1 of First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is clarificatory in nature, and, therefore, it is applicable for the earlier assessment years also we cannot accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that while computing the chargeable profits, only the gross royalty income should be taken into consideration in view of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in (1984) 146 ITR 178 (MP) cited supra, wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Addl.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Stanes Tyre & Rubber Products Ltd. on 18 March, 1996

In view of the various decisions cited supra rendered by various High Courts wherein it was held that the Explanation brought out to r. 1 of First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is clarificatory in nature, and, therefore, it is applicable for the earlier assessment years also we cannot accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that while computing the chargeable profits, only the gross royalty income should be taken into consideration in view of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in (1984) 146 ITR 178 (MP) cited supra, wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Addl.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs B.D. Goenka on 12 August, 1998

7. As the extent of the benefit derived by the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1973-74 has not been determined, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to determine the extent of the assessee's share in the income derived by the firm and from the customs clearance certificate and the amount so determined by the Tribunal shall be added to the wealth of the assessee for those assessment years. The additions to be made in so far as the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 are concerned shall be the amount computed in accordance with the decision of this court in T. C. Nos. 292 and 293 of 1983 (Traders and Traders v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 269).
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R J Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next