Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing James Anderson, Administrator Ofthe ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 4 March, 1960

Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Saraswathi Talkies, Jaggaiahpet on 24 July, 1998

"3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 47(ii) of the Act applied to the case and that the assessee-firm was entitled to have the capital gains excluded from its hands, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of James Anderson v. CIT, 39 ITR 123 ?"
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Y V Narayana - Full Document

Sarabhai M. Chemicals Private Ltd. And ... vs P.N. Mittal, Competent Authority, ... on 5 February, 1980

The Supreme Court has pointed out in James Anderson v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 123 that the distribution of capital assets under the third proviso to Section 12B(1) meant distribution of the capital assets in specie and not distribution of the sale proceeds. At page 259 of the report (49 ITR), it has been pointed out by V. S. Desai J. :
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 45 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

P.V. Chandran vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 October, 2000

4. No decision exactly covering the points in question was cited before me by both sides. According" to the senior standing counsel for the Department, it is not the section but Section 168 has to be applied. He also cited the decisions reported in James Anderson v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 123 (SC) ; Estate of VR. RM. S. Chockalingam Chettiar v. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 429 (Mad) and CIT v. Usha D. Shah [1981] 127 ITR 850 (Bom). Section 168 applies to executors of wills, administrators or persons managing the estate and not mere legal representatives. The Revenue pointed out various decisions to show that interest on refund received by an assessee is an income as defined under Section 2(24).
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Income-Tax Officer, District Iii (Iv), ... on 24 November, 1961

This decision of the Bombay High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in James Anderson v. Commissioner of Income-tax. At page 126 of the report it was observed by the Supreme Court that "the view of the Bombay High Court that section 24B does not limit the liability of the arbitrator or the executor to the cases referred to under that section is correct because the appellant (the legal representative) is as much an assessee under the Act as any other individual...."
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shantilal C. Mehta (Administrator Of ... on 3 October, 1977

13. The decision in James Anderson's case [1963] 47 ITR 229 (Bom) supports the case of the revenue inasmuch as it was accepted by the Bombay High Court that the deemed dividend which was stated to have escaped assessment could have been made the subject-matter of proceedings under Section 34 with the aid of Section 24B, the estate being in the hands of the administrator.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next