Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.13 seconds)
Documents citing General Construction And Supply Co. vs Income-Tax Officer (8Th) C-Ward, ... on 5 March, 1961

Income-Tax Officer vs Budge Budge Co. Ltd. on 7 November, 2005

However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assets have not been used by the assessee-company for the business purposes because the company had suspended its operation during the entire year, the depreciation allowance cannot be granted in view of ratio of decision in CIT v. Oriental Coal Co, Ltd. , Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT and Hyderabad Construction Co. Ltd. v. C7T . It was also found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 15,69,383 as revenue expenditure incurred in connection with filling up of pond and levelling of low land etc., which has now started yielding rental income for the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the expenditure claimed by the assessee is capital in nature and hence, he disallowed the same. Further, it was also found that the assessee claimed travelling expenses in excess of Rule 6D, therefore, he disallowed Rs. 18,599 and added the same in the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,69,782 vide order dated 25-2-1998 passed under Section 143(3)/251 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer directed the Assessing Officer to allow correct unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32 as also the business loss for carry forward as per law and passed a speaking order in respect of levy of interest charged under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act and accordingly, partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while upholding the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer dismissed the assessee's appeal vide order dated 31-12-2004 passed in ITA No. 2384/K/2003. In the mean while, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28-7-1999 revised the assessment under Section 154 and computed the assessee's income at 'nil' as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lakshman Prakash vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P. on 27 July, 1962

In General Construction and Supply Co. v. Income-tax Officer, 1962-44 ITR 16 (Bom) Chainani, C.J., and Mody, J., repelled the argument that an appellate authority dealing with the assessment for a certain year could record a finding and give directions in regard to the income for that year only and had no authority to record any finding in regard to the income assessable in any other year The learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgment, preferred 1959-36 ITR 41: (AIR 1959 Mad 328) (supra) to 1960-39 ITR 265: (AIR 1960 All 97) (supra) and referred to Indurkar v. Pravin Chandra, 1958-34 ITR 397 (Bom).
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Motilal Bawalal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 28 June, 1962

9. Now, the assessee had in terms raised a contention before the Tribunal that if the sum of Rs. 84,900 was found liable to be taxed, then it was the income of the assessment year 1944-45 and not of the assessment year 1945-46 and, therefore, the assessment made against him should be cancelled. That being the contention raised before the Tribunal, we find it difficult to sustain the contention that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding to deal with the contention of the assessee in respect of the year to which the said income belonged. In our opinion, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in making the observations which we have already reproduced above. We find support in the view taken by us in the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Simrathmull v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund and the decision of a Division Bench of this court in General Construction and Supply Co. v. Income-tax Officer, (8th) C-Ward, Bombay. At page 21 of the report the learned Chief Justice has observed :
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Jyoti Construction Company, Kalyan vs Assessee on 27 April, 2016

स्थामी रेखा सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAGFJ 3752 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) AND Cross Objection No.225/Mum/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.2393/Mum/2015) ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009 -2010) M/s Jyoti Construction Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kalyan, 2nd No.11, New Gurukrupa Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Society, Opp. Agra Road, Road, Kalyan(W)-421301, Shiovaji Chowk, Kalyan(W )- District Thane 421301 स्थामी रेखा सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAGFJ 3752 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri K.Mohandas ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandawal सन ु वाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 10/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date of Pronouncement 27/04/2016 आदे श / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Construction Co., Kalyan vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 April, 2016

स्थामी रेखा सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAGFJ 3752 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) AND Cross Objection No.225/Mum/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.2393/Mum/2015) ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009 -2010) M/s Jyoti Construction Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kalyan, 2nd No.11, New Gurukrupa Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Society, Opp. Agra Road, Road, Kalyan(W)-421301, Shiovaji Chowk, Kalyan(W )- District Thane 421301 स्थामी रेखा सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAGFJ 3752 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri K.Mohandas ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandawal सन ु वाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 10/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date of Pronouncement 27/04/2016 आदे श / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.S. Shirgaonkar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona on 5 December, 1968

His protest, however, was ignored by the Income-tax Officer, who took the view that since the fresh assessment had been initiated to give effect to a finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order for the assessment year 1952-53, the bar of limitation was removed in view of the provisions of section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer accordingly brought the said amount to tax in the assessment year 1951-52. The decision of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed in appeals by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relied on the authority of the Madras High Court in K. Simrathmull v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, and of this court in General Construction and Supply Co. v. Income-tax Officer (8th), C-Ward, Section III, Bombay, and held that there was a finding in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order for the assessment year 1952-53 that the amount in question was assessable in the year 1951-52, and the Income-tax Officer could reopen the assessment under section 34(1)(b) read with section 34(3) for the said year irrespective of the time-limit in order to give effect to the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1