Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.02 seconds)
Documents citing S.B. (House & Land) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 February, 1978

Y.V. Anjaneyulu vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 September, 1989

In this context, it is also useful to refer to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in S. B. (House and Land) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT , wherein Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the court, referred to all these cases including the judgment of Chandrachud J. (as he then was) in H. Holck Larsen's case , Kalyanji Mavji's case and Anandji Haridas and Co.'s case and held thus (at p. 802) :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 6 - K J Reddy - Full Document

Madgul Udyog vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 July, 1989

36. It is also not correct to say that the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Osman Ali Khan [1986] 162 ITR 888, approved the decision of this court in Ganga Properties Ltd. . The Supreme Court discussed the Calcutta decision at page 896 of the Reports and clearly observed that this case was concerned with Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was not relevant lor the purposes of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Supreme Court also referred to the decision of this court in S. B. (House and Land) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 785 and observed that this decision was based upon the particular facts of the case and was not relevant for the purposes of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Calcutta High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sahay Properties And Investment Co. (P) ... on 2 December, 1982

Learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to quite a number of decisions to show that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jodha Mal's case (supra) were distinguishable and had as a matter of fact, been distinguished in quite a number of cases, namely, in the cases of Zorostrian Building society Ltd. (supra) S.B. (House and Land) Pvt. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 119 I.T.R. 785.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Veer Metals vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 24 June, 1994

5.9 With regard to genuineness of the transaction, there is nothing to confirm, even to suggest anything dubious. In nutshell, therefore, the parties are identifiable moneys have been lent through their bank accounts, their accounts are credited with the amounts involved in the books of the assessed and where tax has been deducted at source on payment of interest, certificates have been issued by the assessed in favor of the parties and acted upon by the Revenue at the time of framing of individuals assessment by the respective Assessing Officer. All the ingredients, therefore, of proving the cash credits as visualised in the cases of Shankar Industries, cited supra, as also Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are ratified by the assessed. The additions made by the Assessing Officer as also sustained by the CIT(A) is a clear case where the authorities below rejected a good explanation of the assessed thereby converting good proof into no proof. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, in error in making the impugned addition under S. 68 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs H.D. Dennis And Others on 6 April, 1981

23. Turning now to the second question, viz., whether the ITO was justified in re-opening the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act, we may first point out the legal position on the point on the point. This question fell for consideration on a number of occasions before various High Courts, including this court, and also the Supreme Court and we should have thought that the controversy was finally settled and the position in law crystallized. However, Shri Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue, once again took us through all the decisions on the point. An additional decision which he pointed out on the subject was that of the Calcutta High Court in S. B. (House &Land) Pvt. Ltd v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 785.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 19 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Mrs. M.P. Gnanambal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1979

We have seen that she had in fact no rights on the property. When the sons vacate the properties, different considerations would arise. We do not propose to consider any such question here as it does not arise here. The learned counsel for the Commissioner drew our attention to the following cases : Raja Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur , CIT v. Biman Behari Shaw Shebait [1968] 68 ITR 815 (Cal), CIT v. Union Land and Building Society Private Ltd., [1972] 83 ITR 794 (Bom) and S. B. (House & Land) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT . As pointed out by the Calcutta High Court itself in the last mentioned decision, the question of ownership has to be considered only in the light of the particular facts and we have to consider the question only in the light of the peculiar terms of the document before us and also the nature of the interest created in favour of the lady. The result is, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to her costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500 one set.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next