Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Late T.S. Srinivasa Iyer on 18 November, 1981
He also submitted that it is a moot question as to how far Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT , can be pressed into service to the question in this case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 799 (1.63 seconds)Documents citing
Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 17 August, 1971
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Citi Financial Cosumer Finance ... on 29 July, 2019
25.3 Another argument by the Id. DR is the variation and dichotomy between the accounting
treatment of such expenditure in the books of account and its claim under the Act. As far
as the entries in the books of account are concerned, it is well settled that they do not
clinch the issue either way, and are not determinative of the allowability or otherwise of
the expenditure. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath
Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 and in the case of CIT v. Indian Discounts
Co. Ltd. [1970J 75 ITR 191 (SC) are clear on the issue.
Dcit, Cc-2(2),, Chennai vs M/S. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,, ... on 1 March, 2021
Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co, Ltd. v. CIT (1971) (82 ITR 363 (SC)
S. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Business expenditure -
Allowablity of - assessment year 1955-56 - assessee
company claimed deduction on account of sales tax
determined by sales tax authorities to be payable on sales
made by assessee during relevant assessment year - ITO
disallowed claim on the ground that assessee had denied its
liability to pay that amount and had made no provision in its
books with regard to payment of that amount. - Whether when
liability had even been quantified and a demand created by
notice of notice during pendency of assessment proceedings
before ITO and before finalization of assessment said liability
remained intact even after assessee had taken appeals to
higher authorities or courts which failed - Held, Yes -
Whether therefore assessee maintaining accounts on
mercantile system was fully justified in claiming deduction of
sales tax amount which it was liable under law to pay during
relevant assessment year - Held Yes."
Sea Mates India vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 September, 1999
No such reason is given in the assessment order to find that Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC), is not applicable to the assessee's case. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessing authority had no doubt that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Khushi Ram Bhagwan Dass on 2 December, 2004
Accordingly, following Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.'s case the two decisions of this Court and of other High Courts referred to above, it is held that the Income-tax Officer had rightly allowed the deduction in the original assessment framed by him. Once the assessment orders were rightly framed, no case for rectification or for reopening under Sections 147/148 and 154/155 of the Act arises and the notices are clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Devatha Chandraiah And Sons on 13 April, 1983
14. Only the book profits are adopted for the purpose of assessment of tax though the credit amount is not realised or the debit amount is not actually disbursed. If an income accrues within a particular year, it is liable to be assessed in the succeeding year. Whether the right to receive an amount under a contract accrues or arises to the assessee has to be found out upon the terms of a particular contract. If the method of accounting adopted by the assessee is cash system, it would qualify for deduction only in the year in which it was actually paid. If the method is mercantile system, then the deduction will be permissible in the year in which the liability relates irrespective of the point of time when the liability relates irrespective of the point of time when the liability actually been discharged. (Vide Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Gajapathy Naidu and Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT ).
Avon Cycles (P) Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. on 2 September, 1993
9. Aggrieved by this treatment, the assessee preferred and appeal before the CIT. The CIT on appeal without much of discussion in any case on the relevant point confirmed the disallowance. When the matter came in appeal before the Tribunal, the contention urged on the behalf of the assessee before it was that on the strength of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sinkakollu Subba Rao & Co. vs. Union of India (supra), s. 43B was inapplicable and, therefore, the entire amount added as part of the trading receipts of the assessee should be allowed as a deduction following the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Jute Mfg. Co. (supra). In other words, his submissions were more or less the same as before the authorities below only thing the support for that was taken from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The learned Judicial Member held that the provision of law meaning thereby s. 43B being mandatory in nature, there was no escape for the Revenue authorities from disallowing the sales-tax amount collected and not paid. He, therefore, confirmed the disallowance. The learned Accountant Member, however, saw it differently.
Core Health Care Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 June, 2000
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. India Discount Co. Ltd. (1970) 75 ITR 191 (SC), in which it was held that the receipt being one which in law could not be regarded as income, it could not become income merely because the assessee erroneously credited it into the P&L a/c. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. v. CIT (supra). At p. 367 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
Cit vs Leader Engg. Works on 7 May, 2002
Accordingly, following Kedarnath's case (supra) the two decisions of this court and of other High Courts referred to above, it is held that the Income Tax Officer had rightly allowed the deduction in the original assessment framed by him. Once the assessment orders were rightly framed, no case for rectification or for reopening under sections 147/148 and 154/155 of the Act arises and the notices are clearly illegal and without jurisdiction."
Core Health Care Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 6 June, 2000
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had followed the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. (1970) 75 ITR 191 (SC), in which it was held that the receipt being one which in law could not be regarded as income, it could not become income merely because the assessee erroneously credited it into the P&L a/c. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. vs. CIT (supra). At p. 367 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :