Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Culcutta vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd on 14 February, 1989

Ito vs Bhasin Rice & General Mills on 19 January, 2004

In the case of M/s Mahalaxmi Rice Factory, the assessee had shown total purchases of paddy in the books at 43,321 qtls. but as per the information received from the DFSC, such purchases were reported at 43976 qtls. Thus, the assessing officer had observed that difference of 655 qtls. (43976 - 43321) represented unexplained investment of Rs. 1,14,625. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the unexplained investment on the ground that if the same are considered, corresponding deduction for the equal amount is to be allowed. I agree with such view because the same is in conformity with the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhalkla Bros. 10 TLR 45. However, I find that the assessee had also reported the yield of rice obtained from milling of 43976 qtls. of paddy to the DFSC, which means that the same had been duly reflected in the books of accounts though corresponding purchase of paddy was not shown in the books. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also allowed credit for the entire quantity of yield of rice and other by-products as shown in the books, which is inclusive of yield obtained from milling of 655 qtls. of paddy. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account 655 qtls. of paddy for the purpose of computing yield of rice and other by-products obtained therefrom. This is not correct. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to estimate the yield of rice and other by products at the rates mentioned in Annex.-A of the impugned order, obtained from milling of 655 qtls. and estimate the total receipts by applying the rates mentioned therein. The amount so worked out would be included in the total income of the assessee in addition to the income already computed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). I direct accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. K.M. Shah vs Dy. C.I.T. on 7 May, 2004

However, as observed by the Apex Court in CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros.P.Ltd., (1989) 176 ITR 535, the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not to be scrutinized sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgement. If the Court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered unless the conclusions are perverse, in facts before the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion to which it has come. Now turning to the so-called omissions on the part of the Tribunal -
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - M S Shah - Full Document

Hindustan Inks & Resins Ltd.,, Vapi. vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2004

V. Micro Inks Ltd. Page 13 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dresser Rand India P. Ltd.[2010] 323 ITR 429 (Bom), wherein, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly held that the recovery of freight, insurance, packaging receipts, sales tax refund and service income being miscellaneous income not forming part of export activity covered by section 80HHC, ninety per cent of such income should be excluded from computing the income of eligible business for purposes of section 80HHC, following the decision in the case of CIT Vs. K Ravindranathan Nair [2007] 295 ITR 228 (SC). In reply the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that when two High Courts differ on the same issue, the beneficial view should be taken in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 33 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Chhatar Extractions (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 9 January, 2004

2.1 After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the appeal of the Revenue has to be allowed in view of the binding decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Bros. Rice Mills (1989) 179 JTR 470 (P&H). Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce the subsidy received by the assessee from the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation and investment allowance.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jaiswal Grain Stores on 26 July, 2004

3. We have heard Shri Govind Krishna, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that under Section 68 of the Act, once an explanation offered by the assessee regarding the deposit has been disbelieved, the natural corollary is that it should be treated as income of the assessee of that year. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Kapur Bros., (1979) 118 ITR 741 (All) and of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of C. Kant & Co. v. CIT, (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal).
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1