Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing The Indo-Commercial Bank, Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 March, 1961

The Hasti Co.Op. Bank Ltd.,, vs Department Of Income Tax on 2 May, 2016

7. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has held that the assessee is entitled to change his method of valuation provided it is bonafide and the changed method is regularly followed. The method adopted should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and accepted principles of accountancy.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu vs Carborundum Universal Ltd. on 3 August, 1983

18. Thus, the adoption of "direct cost" method by the assessee cannot be questioned by the Revenue as it has been found by the Tribunal that the adoption of this method is bona fide and is a permanent arrangement. The Revenue's only contention is that it has shown to be prejudicial to the Revenue. As pointed out in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT and Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 22 (Mad), merely because the new method adopted by the assessee was detrimental to the Revenue, that alone can never be the basis for denying the right to change the method. Further, even though the change of the method has resulted in a detriment to the Revenue in the year in question, since the method is to be followed consistently year after year in future, this apparent detriment to the Revenue will get adjusted and disappear. Therefore, in view of the findings of the Tribunal that the change of the method is bona fide and is intended to be followed in future, year after year, the change has to be accepted by the Revenue, notwithstanding the fact that during assessment year which is the first year when change of method is brought about it has resulted in a prejudice or detriment to the Revenue. So long as the method of valuation adopted by the assessee gets recognition from the practising accountants and the commercial world for valuation of stock-in-trade, the adoption of that method cannot be questioned by the Revenue unless the adoption of that method is found to be not bona fide or restricted for a particular year.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 84 - Full Document

S. S. Sivan Pillai And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 2 August, 1965

Learned counsel for the revenue strongly relied on Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and pressed before us that "profits" in sub-section (4) of section 15C refer only to assessed profits attributable to the industrial undertaking, whose profits are exempt from tax under section 15C(1). We do not think that this case is of assistance to the revenue. The scope of sub-section (3) of section 15C and its bearing on the computation of profits and gains of an industrial undertaking, for the purpose of that section, did not arise and has not been considered in that case. It does not appear from the facts in that case that there was any question of carry-forward of losses or even unabsorbed depreciation under section 10(2)(via) entering into the computation of profits or gains of the industrial undertaking there. In that case, the assessee held certain ordinary and preference shares in India Cements Limited, from which it revived certain dividends for the current years 1951 and 1952. They were assessed by the Income-tax Officer as income from "other sources" for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that since the dividends were declared out of commercial profits of the company, and as the company did not suffer any tax as all its profits had been wiped off by depreciation, and there was no assessment on the company, the question of granting exemption to the dividends did not arise. It is not clear from the report whether this wiping off by depreciation related to unabsorbed depreciation or current depreciation. The question this court had to consider in that case was whether the dividends received from the company, no part of whose income has been specifically exempted under section 15C, was exempt in the hands of the assessee under section 15C(4). The answer was in those words :
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Andhra Prabha Ltd. on 9 July, 1996

8. So also in Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT, [1962] 44 ITR 22 (Mad), this court, while considering the provisions of Sections 15 and 15C (1) and (4) Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, held that the method an assessee adopted for valuing his closing stock was a "method of accounting" within the meaning of Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. At any rate, it was an integral part of the mercantile system of accounting. It was further held as under (headnote) :
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next