Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 638 (4.47 seconds)
Documents citing Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commr. Of Income Tax, West Bengal, ... on 27 September, 1978

M/S. Aamby Valley Ltd., Mumbai vs Acit, New Delhi on 22 February, 2019

Amalgamation approved by the Honourable Bombay High Court. Further, the valuation of the asset, passing entries in the books of account etc., are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the date of transfer. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sutlez Cotton Mills Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 177 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1981

11. That, according to our opinion, is the true test whether the profit in question arose out of any trading activity. It is not sufficient to be taxable if it is in any way connected with the trade of the assessee. It must be as a result of a trading activity of the assessee or it must arise or result from the trading activity of the assessee. Merely because the holder of a currency gets something more than what it would have got otherwise would not transform the accretion into a trading profit unless the holding or the dealing in foreign exchange of the particular currency was the trading activity of the assessee concerned. In this case, there is no such finding. We referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT , where the Supreme Court generally dealt with the nature of the taxability in case of both profit and loss on devaluation. But we pointed out, in the aforesaid decision of ours, that the point involved in the Supreme Court case was the allowability of a particular loss and we noted that the loss might be a loss occasioned by carrying on of the operation of the assessee. We noted that no assessee carries on business for making losses but the losses could incidentally arise in the course of the business. But in order to be trading profit the assessee must be carrying on the trading activity. The profit being taxable must arise out of business or in the course of business, not merely connected with the business of the assessee. We referred in this connection to several other decisions and we relied plainly, as we have mentioned before, on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank .
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 33 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Goodricke Group Ltd. (No. 2) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1991

15. What the Supreme Court was saying, according to the learned advocate for the Revenue, was only in the context of Section 55(2). We are unable to agree. What the Supreme Court was laying down about the language of the statute applied also to Section 45 as modified by Section 55(2) of the Act in cases where such Section was applicable. This has also been reviewed by this court in the case of Sutkj Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT , where the learned advocate for the assessee had contended before the court at page 675 as follows :
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Eveready Industries India Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 February, 2016

22. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. As far as Ground No.3 is concerned, the AO has not disputed the fact that the Assessee conducted physical inspection of its stock upon which obsolete, non-moving and damaged stocks were identified having no realizable value. The fact that the expenditure in question was written off against revaluation reserve and not charged to profit and loss account cannot be the basis to disallow a legitimate revenue expenditure and that entries in the books of accounts are not always conclusive in the matter of deciding whether a claim for deduction has to be allowed or not. The created a value for its brand "Eveready" and disclosed in the Asset side of the Balance Sheet and reduced therefrom the value of obsolete stock instead of reducing from the profit and loss account. Such presentation in the books of accounts will not in any way affect the claim of the Assessee for deduction of legitimate revenue expenditure. Write off in the profit and loss account of the previous year is not a condition for allowing deduction under Chapter IV D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Any expenditure which is otherwise to be allowed in computing income from business under Sec.28 to 43 has to be allowed as a deduction. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) entries in the books of accounts is not decisive or determinative of the question whether the Assessee is entitled to a deduction or not while computing income from business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 1 August, 2002

Reliance was again placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton (supra). Further reliance was also placed on various case laws mentioned in written synopsis, and again it was stated that when the account books are maintained properly and no defect of any kind was found, the claim of the assessed cannot be disallowed, by merely observing that claim is not genuine as the loss is notional one.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next