Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay City on 4 September, 1953

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mattoo Worsted Spinning And Weaving ... on 4 February, 1980

It is true that the assessee had not specifically claimed the relief, for the above-mentioned assessment year. This may be an omission on his part. But the question is, whether after affording the necessary relief under Section 80J in respect of three later successive assessment years, was it not the duty of the ITO to notify this fact to the assesses in the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1970-71, and grant the relief ? As observed by the learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 90, the right which the Legislature has conferred upon the assessee arises under Section 24(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, to carry forward the loss of previous years for a period of six years is an absolute unqualified right and that right is an absolute and unqualified right, and that right is not made conditional upon any computation by the ITO or any notice issued by him under Section 24(3). This right arises to an assessee when the assessee had made profits and seeks to set off the losses incurred during the previous years against the profits. The fact that the ITO had not computed the losses of earlier years can have no bearing upon the right of the assessee to claim the deduction.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mangiram Gopi Chand on 16 April, 1976

In support of his contention that the right conferred under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was a substantive right, counsel has referred us to the cases of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 25 ITR 90 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Govindalal Dutta [1958] 33 ITR 630 (Cal), In All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 25 ITR 90 (Bom), the question was as to whether a loss which the assessee could claim under Section 24(2) could be disallowed only on the ground that it had not been notified as required under Section 24(3). Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court took the view that the right conferred by Section 24(2) of the Act was an absolutely unqualified right, and not made conditional upon a computation made by the Income-tax Officer or any notice issued by the Income-tax Officer. The decision is hardly of any help for in that case, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was in force and the only question that arose for determination was as to whether the- right conferred by Section 24(2) was dependent on Section 24(3) of the Act. Here the question is as to whether the repeal of the 1922 Act extinguished the right of carrying forward of the loss which had not been set off, and further as to whether such an amount could be set off against the speculative profits of the firm or be dealt with in accordance with Section 75 of the new Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Vishwa Hindu Parishad Sankat Mochan ... vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax on 14 December, 1999

4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended before us that the assessee had submitted an application seeking registration within the prescribed time, as per the mandate of s. 12A(a) and it was prerogative of the CIT to consider the application and decide the question of granting or refusing registration to the applicant. It was argued that no action was taken by the CIT for the reasons best known to him. It was submitted that the requirement on the part of the applicant at the relevant time was only to apply for registration with the CIT as envisaged by s. 12A(a) and as the assessee had complied with the legal requirement, it could not be penalised due to inaction on the part of the authorities. The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 90 (Bom) for the proposition that no action against the assessee can be taken for the default committed by the Department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anam Machinery Fabricators Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 22 November, 1993

In the same para the decision of the Bombay High Court in AH India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd.'s case (supra) also figured and it is not stated anywhere that the decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court, or was dissented from by other High Courts. In such circumstances, the assessee is unable to understand where and how the appellant had misquoted the decision.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 46 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Jaipur Udyog Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 August, 1984

There was no such explanation in Section 85 of the Act but the said section started with the words "Subject to any rules that may be made by the Board in this behalf". This would show that the computation was to be made in accordance with the rules to be made by the Board under both the provisions. The fact that in Rule 20 of the Rules certain provisions have been made for the purpose of computation does not mean that the decision of this court in relation to the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, would not be applicable to the present case. The provisions that have been made in Rule 20 of the Rules only prescribed the method of computation and violation of the said provisions would only affect the validity of the computation, but the said rule has no bearing on the principle of law laid down by this court that the Department cannot take advantage of an erroneous determination made by the ITO if it has been acted upon by the assessee.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Govindalal Dutta on 4 September, 1957

The Income-tax Officer, the Tribunal thought, had no right to ignore such returns and, according to them, it had been so held in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City, . In that view, the Tribunal held that since the years in respect of which losses had been claimed were years immediately preceding the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer could not make a valid assessment for that year until and unless he had determined the losses in respect of the earlier years, because if there had been in fact losses in those years, such losses would have to be set off against the income of the assessment year in question. In the result, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to deal with the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and then to make the assessment for the year 1948-49.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next