Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 303 (3.88 seconds)
Documents citing A.L.A. Firm vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 21 February, 1991

M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers, Kottayam vs The Ito, Kottayam on 10 October, 2018

18.3 The facts of this case are the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.23,75,735 being difference in valuation of closing stock, following the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (189 ITR 285). From 06/12/2007, this line of business of the assessee was closed and the assets and liabilities of the firm were taken over by proprietary concern of the Managing Partner, M/s. Dona Gold. The above referred income 29 I.T.A. Nos. 320 etc./C/2016 (Sunny Jacob Jewellers) was computed by adopting 22% (G.P. ratio) on the value of closing stock of Rs.84,23,061/- taken over by the partner. By this, the tax and interest payable over and above the tax determined, as per the original order passed u/s. 143(3) was fixed at Rs.9,76,357/-.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs V.T. Ramalingam And Others on 22 April, 1992

In A. L. A. Firm v. CIT , on appeal from A. L. A. Firm v. CIT , the Supreme Court, while confirming the decision of this court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622, took the view that the terms of the circular cannot be of any assistance to the assessee in answering the issues and in that view, the Supreme Court refrained from answering the third question posed by the Tribunal. It is thus seen that the Supreme Court had not pronounced about the binding nature of the circular in the decision referred to by learned counsel for the Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sagar Tyre House vs Ito on 6 November, 2002

7. In the appeal before us, the learned counsel of the assessee argued before us that the firm was dissolved on 31-3-1992, and the same business was continued even after 31-3-1992, in the assessment year. The firm was dissolved and the ex-partner, Smt. Jain, has taken over the business assets and liabilities and continued the same business. As such, when there was dissolution of firm but continuation of the business, there is no necessity to value the stock on market price when there was no sale of the stock at the time of dissolution of firm. The stock was valued as per practice adopted during many previous years hence the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (supra) does not apply and also the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in case of CIT v. Nathulal Jawaharchand (supra) where the Hon'ble MP High Court has considered the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also does not apply as the facts of the present case are different from the facts in cases mentioned above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi, New ... vs Usha International Limited on 21 September, 2012

―We think there is force in the argument on behalf of the assessee that, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the I.T.O. at the time of the original assessment, it is difficult to take the view that the Income- tax Officer had not at all applied his mind to the question whether the surplus is taxable or not. It is true that the return was filed and the assessment was completed on the same date. Nevertheless, it is opposed to normal human conduct that an officer would complete the assessment without looking at the material placed before him. It is not as if the assessment record contained a large number of documents or the case raised complicated issues rendering it probable that the I.T.O. had missed these facts. It is a case where there is only one contention raised before the I.T.O. and it is, we think, impossible to hold that the ITA 2026/2010 (FB) Page 27 of 48 Income-tax Officer did not at all look at the return filed by the assessee or the statements accompanying it. The more reasonable view to take would, in our opinion, be that the Income-tax Officer looked at the facts and accepted the assessee's contention that the surplus was not taxable. But, in doing so, the obviously missed to take note of the law laid down in Ramachari which there is nothing to show, had been brought to his notice. When he subsequently became aware of the decision, he initiated proceedings under Section 147(b). The material which constituted information and on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in Ramachari. This material was not considered at the time of" the original assessment. Though it was a decision of 1961 and the I.T.O. could have known of it had he been diligent, the obvious fact is that he was not aware of the existence of the decision then and, when he came to know about it, he rightly initiated proceedings for reassessment.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 188 - S Khanna - Full Document

Kirtilal Kalidas & Co.,, Coimbatore vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 November, 2012

21. Regarding the question of adopting the market price of jewellery at the time of conversion of partnership firm into joint stock company, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) found that valuation of closing stock at market price is applicable only in cases where the business is discontinued. He found that in the present case the business carried on by the firm was never discontinued, but, on the other hand, the business was taken over by a successor company without any interruption. He observed that all the assets and liabilities of the firm were vested with the company and as per section 575 of the Companies Act, 1956, all properties vest with the company at the time of registration pursuant to Part IX of the Companies Act and therefore there is no cessation or discontinuance of business. He accordingly held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT, 189 ITR 285 is not applicable to the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.R. Mens Avenue , Bangalore vs Assessee on 18 December, 2012

"There is no authority directly in point dealing with this question, where a partnership concern dissolves its business in the course of the accounting year, what is the basis on which the stock-in-trade has to be value as on the date of dissolution. We have to deal with the matter on first principles. "16.From the above, it is evident that in A.L.A Firm's case (supra) this Court was considering the question of valuation of closing stock at market value in a case where there was dissolution and also discontinuance of the business of the firm. Though there was dissolution on account of the death of one of the partners, but there was no discontinuance of the business. Even as per principles laid down in A.L.A. Firm's case (supra) in such a case the closing stock is to be valued at the cost or market price, whichever is lower.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Popular Automobiles on 7 September, 2001

"From the above, it is evident that in A. L. A. Firm's case [1991] 189 ITR 285, this court was considering the question of valuation of closing stock at market value in a case where there was dissolution and also discontinuance of the business of the firm. In that case after dissolution, two groups were carrying on separate businesses with the assets and liabilities which fell to their shares from the dissolution of the firm. In the present case, however, though there was dissolution on account of the death of one of the partners, there was no discontinuance of the business. The unchallenged finding recorded by the Tribunal is that there was no discontinuance of business.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next