Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Somendra Kumar Neogi on 27 August, 1980

Lohia Machines Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 21 March, 1986

Textile Machinery Corporation v. C.I.T.; (iii) 131 ITR 592 at 596 CIT, West Bengal v. Somendra Kumar Neogi; (iv) 126 ITR 673 at 678 (CIT v. Gedore Tools India Ltd.); (v) 128 ITR 290 (Kamal Chand v. I.T.O.); (vi) 113 ITR 208 at 216 (C.I.T. v. Satellite Engineering Ltd.); (vii) 1982(11) ITD 39 at 44 (Laxmi Rice Mills v. I.T.O.); (viii) 1982 (2) ITD 454 at 457 at 457-458; (ix) 78 ITR 26];
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jawahar Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 October, 1987

Similar view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Somendra Kumar Neogi [1981] 131 ITR 592, wherein it has been held that where an individual business is converted into partnership business the partnership is not a successor in terms of Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax Officer is not bound to allow development rebate even in the first year when the claim is considered when he knew that soon after the accounting year the asset was sold and thereby violating the condition which necessitated withdrawal of the development rebate subsequently. This decision of the Calcutta High Court is recently approved by the Supreme Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs U.P. Hotel And Restaurants Ltd. on 9 November, 1982

17. The Revenue went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the ITO was not justified in refusing the allowance of development rebate for the assessment year 1968-69. It was held by the High Court that the ITO was justified in his refusal to grant development rebate for the assessment year 1968-69. It appears that the said authority was concerned about the meaning of "succession" within the meaning of Section 33 of the Act and so this controversy was not before that court in that case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1