Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing M. K. Brothers Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 16 February, 1966

K.C. Bose And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 February, 1985

(h) M.K. Brothers Private Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 28 (All) : In this case, the assessee entered into a contract with a sole selling agent whereby the latter, who was indebted to its principal, agreed to resign its agency in favour of the assessee on condition that the assessee would pay to the outgoing agent one-seventh of the commission which would accrue to the assessee as sole selling agent. The said part of the commission, it was agreed, would be retained by the principal and adjusted against the debts of the outgoing sole selling agent to the principal. On such facts, it was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that the part of the commission earmarked for liquidation of the dues of the outgoing agent was part of the income accruing to the assessee and would be retained by the principal for adjustment only after it was earned. There was no diversion of income before accrual but there was an application thereof after it was earned. The entire commission was assessable to income-tax.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Comm. Of Central Excise And Customs vs Ishwarlal K. Patel on 23 July, 2002

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.M.Salgoacor and Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in AIR 2000 SC- 1623 make this legal position very clear. It has been held in the said decision that while the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing special Leave petitions do not attract the doctrine of merger, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court- even non speaking ordersdismissing Civil Appeals do attract the doctrine of merger.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Rohit Dyeing And Fining Works on 24 July, 2002

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.M.Salgoacor and Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in AIR 2000 SC- 1623 make this legal position very clear. It has been held in the said decision that while the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing special Leave petitions do not attract the doctrine of merger, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court- even non speaking orders dismissing Civil Appeals do attract the doctrine of merger.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Dilip V. Dherai, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 11 June, 2013

24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor's statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards unexplained investment. The action of the AO was justified and the additions were confirmed. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision, in the present case, none of the sellers have been examined by the AO to strengthen his views that cash has been paid over and above the registered amount. There is not even a single document/evidence of parties involved in the sale of land at different villages brought on record to show that an amount other than the payment of consideration has exchanged hands. No confession from the sellers have been brought on record. The entire additions have been made merely on the strength of loose papers found during the course of the search not supported by any independent authority. Considering the entire addition, in the light of the provisions of Sec. 69C, as per A.O's own interpretation, investments in purchase of land have been fully financed by some other persons, therefore, the addition in the hands of the assessee cannot be justified as the assessee has not incurred any expenditure. There may be one more possibility that the persons who were doing land purchase might have inflated the sale price in these loose sheets just to extract monies from their higher authorities in the guise of On-Money to be paid to the vendors. May be because of his possibility no documents were found to show that the money actually changed hands.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anand Jain, Mumbai vs Assessee on 17 April, 2015

24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor's statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards unexplained investment. The action of the AO was justified and the additions were confirmed. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision, in the present case, none of the sellers have been examined by the AO to strengthen his views that cash has been paid over and above the registered amount. There is not even a single document/evidence of parties involved in the sale of land at different villages brought on record to show that an amount other than the payment of consideration has exchanged hands. No confession from the sellers have been brought on record. The entire additions have been made merely on the strength of loose papers found during the course of the search not supported by any independent authority. Considering the entire addition, in the light of the provisions of Sec. 69C, as per A.O's own interpretation, investments in purchase of land have been fully financed by some other persons, therefore, the addition in the hands of the assessee cannot be justified as the assessee has not incurred any expenditure. There may be one more possibility that the persons who were doing land purchase might have inflated the sale price in these loose sheets just to extract monies from their higher authorities in the guise of On-Money to be paid to the vendors. May be because of his possibility no documents were found to show that the money actually changed hands.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1