Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979

Indore Development Authority And Etc. vs Manoharlal And Ors. Etc. on 23 October, 2019

United States 333 US 611: “I see no reason why I should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday.” Lord Denning also said to the same effect when he observed in Ostime v. Australian Mutual Provident Society (1960) AC 549: “The doctrine of precedent does not compel Your Lordships to follow the wrong path until you fall over the edge of the cliff.” Here we find that there are overriding considerations which compel us to reconsider and review the decision in Cloth Traders case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 8 - A Mishra - Full Document

M/S. Vijay Industries vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 March, 2019

13. Now, according to Parliament, this interpretation placed on Section 80-M by the summit court was not in conformity with the legislative intent and it resulted in considerable unjustified loss of revenue. Parliament therefore immediately proceeded to set right what according to it was an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent and with a view to setting at naught such interpretation. Parliament, by Section 12 of Finance (No.2) Act, 1980, introduced in the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80-AA with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968, that is, the date when Section 80-M was originally enacted, providing that the deduction required to be allowed under Section 80-M in respect of inter-corporate dividends “shall be computed with reference to the income by way of such dividends as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter) and not with reference to the gross amount of such dividends”. It is the validity of this new Section 80-AA which is challenged in the present writ petition. But we may make it clear that what is challenged is not the prospective operation of Section 80-AA. That would clearly be unexceptionable because the Legislature can always impose a new tax burden or enhance an existing tax liability with prospective effect. But the complaint of the assessee was against retrospective effect being given to Section 80-AA, because that would have the effect of enhancing the tax burden on the assessee by setting at naught the interpretation placed on Section 80-M by the decision in Clothe Traders case and reducing the amount of deduction required to be allowed under Section 80-M. However, as pointed out at the commencement of this judgment, it would become necessary to examine this complaint against the constitutional validity of retrospective operation of Section 80-AA only if we affirm the interpretation placed on Section 80-M by the decision of this Court in Cloth Traders case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 6 - A K Sikri - Full Document

State Bank Of India Thr. vs Harsh Wood Product Pvt. Ltd. Thr. on 18 March, 2019

amount is "payable" and dismissed the appeal of the Department stating that the question of law framed did not arise for consideration. No doubt, the special leave petition thereagainst was dismissed by this Court in limine. However, that would not amount to confirming the view of the Allahabad High Court[see V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. Vs. Union of India].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1),, Ahmedabad vs Amol Dicalite Ltd.,, Ahmedabad on 27 March, 2019

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income- tax Act, which was prevailing at the relevant time, i.e. during the year ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 24 under consideration, it cannot be said that the ITAT by applying the ratio of decision of the Madras High Court in the case of VTM Ltd. (Supra) and in the case of Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (Supra) has committed any error in deleting the addition of Rs.1,17,98,030/- on account of disallowance of additional depreciation of Wind Electric Generator.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, Hisar on 29 April, 2019

178. We fi nd that the rate whi ch shoul d be adopted by the TPO/AO for benchma rki ng the l oan transacti ons wi th the assessee's Associ ated Enterpri ses shoul d be the LIBOR rate and not the PLR rate as adopted in the instant case i n vi ew of the deci si on of Hon'bl e Del hi High Court i n CIT Vs C otton Natural s I. P. Ltd. (supra). The assessee has al so submi tted that i t has made external commerci al borrowi ngs at i nterest rate rangi ng from 1.63% to 3.72% per annum. The assessee has not provi ded us the detail s of external commerci al borrowi ngs and that the l oans adv anced by the assessee t o i ts Associ ated Enterpri ses was from t hese borrowi ngs. Further, the detail s of LIBOR rate prevaili ng at the rel evant ti me has al so not been provi ded by the assessee. Therefore , we are unabl e 99 ITA No. 893/Del/2014 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 113 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next