Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai vs Smt. P. Manonmani, Karur on 4 February, 2000

Devasan Investments Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax

27. Further, the Department has also placed reliance on "CIT/WT v. P. Manonmani"(supra). Therein, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that while ascertaining the true scope of a provision in a statute, attention must necessarily be paid not only to the text, viz., the words employed in the 18 ITA Nos. 3494&3430(Del)2010 relevant provisions, but also to the context. Referring to this decision, the AO has observed that the assessee company has wrongly interpreted the meaning of "Investment and Capital Assets" and used it for its benefit to deflate its tax liability; and that it was not actually an investment, but a wrong interpretation adopted by the assessee. This, however, as deliberated upon hereinabove, has not been found to be the case. To reiterate, the assessee has all through maintained that the shares held by it were held by way of investment. They were shown as such in its balance sheet. The profit thereon was offered under the head "capital gain". The AO has failed to make out the case as to how the assessee has resorted to a wrong interpretation and that it was not actually an investment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sirius Shipping Co. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner on 25 April, 2001

The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT/CWT v. P. Manonmani [2000] 245 ITR 48 and argued that the object of bringing in a particular section is to be borne in mind while interpreting the same. Of course this decision, wherein it was held that while ascertaining the true scope of a provision in a statute attention must necessarily be paid not only to the text, viz., the words employed in the relevant provision, but also the context, is not of much relevance in deciding the matter, wherein the section is plain and consists of unambiguous words.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.N. Sudhakaran vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 April, 2001

He vehemently contended that the Tribunal being a creature of the Act and having been held to be not a Court could not refuse to apply the law as it stands. He submitted that the Tribunal is not a Court had been so held by the Madras High Court in CIT v. P. Manonmani (2000) 245 ITR 48 (Mad)(FB), Smt. R.V. Sarojini Devi v. IAC (2000) 242 ITR 329 (Mad) and in CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 81 (Mad).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs M/S Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 16 April, 2014

Its investments in the impugned transactions were clearly part of its trading activities, not only because there were no separate accounts, but also because frequent sale and purchase of shares of few companies had been resorted to. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Manomani, 245 ITR 48 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malabar Investment Co., 320 ITR 486 (Kar) were relied on. Relying on the reasoning of the AO, it was argued that the pattern of share acquisition and share clearly showed that the assessee's intention was to trade or conduct business and not to hold the scrips for investment. Had the intention been genuinely to invest in such shares, the assessee ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 4 would have taken the trouble of keeping a separate investment account.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs M/S Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 16 April, 2014

Its investments in the impugned transactions were clearly part of its trading activities, not only because there were no separate accounts, but also because frequent sale and purchase of shares of few companies had been resorted to. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Manomani, 245 ITR 48 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malabar Investment Co., 320 ITR 486 (Kar) were relied on. Relying on the reasoning of the AO, it was argued that the pattern of share acquisition and share clearly showed that the assessee's intention was to trade or conduct business and not to hold the scrips for investment. Had the intention been genuinely to invest in such shares, the assessee ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 4 would have taken the trouble of keeping a separate investment account.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1