Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Central) ... vs K. Sankarapandia Asari And Sons on 1 March, 1980

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharath Auto Stores on 26 October, 1990

CIT v. K. Sankarapandia Asari and Sons [1981] 130 ITR 541 (Mad), dealt with a case of the entitlement of the assessee to amortisation in full, on the basis of the consistent method of accounting adopted by the assessee, by which the entire cost of the distribution rights in the year of acquisition had been written off, which had also been accepted by the Department. There was, in that case, also no dissolution of the firm and the need for any revaluation of the assets as such.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sankarapandia Asari And Sons on 5 March, 1986

Indeed, in so far as the method of accounting adopted by the assessee is concerned, that method has received the express approval of this court in CIT v. K. Sankarapandia Asari and Sons [1981] 130 ITR 541. In so far as the assessee is concerned, we must, therefore, take it as a settled proposition that the method adopted by the assessee is such that on the basis of this method, the profits can be properly ascertained. This will rule out the applicability of the provisions of section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In so far as the present assessee is concerned, therefore, we must take it that the matter stands concluded for the relevant assessment years also.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kisan Discretionary Family Trust vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 November, 2007

17. We are further of the opinion that while Sub-section (3) of Section 145 enables the AO to compute the assessee's income in the manner provided under Section 144 if he is of the opinion that accounts of the assessee are not correct or complete or the assessee has not followed any one of the two system of accounting [provided Sub-section (i) regularly or has not followed the accounting standard notified by the Government regularly], but has not been given power to impose his own method of accounting. He can only compute the income in the manner provided under Section 144 of the Act. This view of ours supported by the decision in the case of CIT v. K. Sankarapandia Asari & Sons (1980) 19 CTR (Mad) 264 : (1981) 130 ITR 54.1 (Mad), 544)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 110 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 21 September, 1989

The assessee for his proposition that the method of accounting which was consistently followed, and accepted by the department, the department cannot reject the same in a subsequent year and it is not for the department to thrust its method on the assessee, placed reliance on the rulings of - (a) Madras High Court in CIT v. K. Sankarpandia Asari & Sons [1981] 130 ITR 541 & CIT v. Sankarapandia Asari & Sons [1987] 165 ITR 616/30 Taxman 236 (Mad.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Godfrey Philips India Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 12 February, 1992

29. The learned D.R. thereafter referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Sankarapandia's case (supra) and Carborundum Universal Ltd.'s case (supra) relied upon on behalf of the assessee. It was held that the assessee under the circumstances was entitled to change the method of valuation of closing stock notwithstanding that prejudice may be caused to the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Pradeshiya Industrial And Investment ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 March, 1987

In the case as reported in CIT v. K. Sankarapandia Asari & Sons [1981] 130 ITR 541, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the ITO cannot impose his own method of accounting disregarding the method employed by the assessee without any evidence that the method adopted by the assessee was defective. In the instant case, no such defect was indicated before obtaining approval of the Commissioner for taking action under Section 142(2A), but on the ground that due to complexities and due to the nature of the accounts compulsory audit was to be made. But while giving the direction, the Assessing Officer had directed the assessee to re-cast the entire accounts and to re-write the books and then give the same to the appointed auditors which again was claimed by the assessee to be in excess of jurisdiction prescribed under Section 142(2A). It is stressed before us that the assessee has the right to adopt any method which has been rightly done so for the year under consideration.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next