Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala- 11 on 3 April, 1997

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.S. Dempo And Co. Pvt.Ltd on 5 February, 2016

51. Similarly, in the case of A. S. CLITTRES D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA-II reported in (1997) 9 SCC 546 , once again, after reproduction of section 172 of the IT Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India SRP 68/79 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2016 00:01:08 ::: ITXA989.15.doc explained the scheme of the section in the following words:-
Bombay High Court Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sesa Goa Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 2016

51. Similarly, in the case of A. S. CLITTRES D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA-II reported in (1997) 9 SCC 546 , once again, after reproduction of section 172 of the IT Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India SRP 68/79 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2016 00:01:17 ::: ITXA989.15.doc explained the scheme of the section in the following words:-
Bombay High Court Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.S. Dempo And Co. Pvt.Ltd on 5 February, 2016

51. Similarly, in the case of A. S. CLITTRES D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA-II reported in (1997) 9 SCC 546 , once again, after reproduction of section 172 of the IT Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India SRP 68/79 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2016 00:01:11 ::: ITXA989.15.doc explained the scheme of the section in the following words:-
Bombay High Court Cites 138 - Cited by 24 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Acit 17(1), Mumbai vs Elve Corporation, Mumbai on 25 April, 2017

51. Similarly, in the case of A. S. Clittres D/5 I/S Garonne and Others v. Commissioner of Income tax, Kerala-II reported in [1997] 9 SCC 546, once again, after reproduction of section 172 of the IT Act, the 38 ITA No.3564, 3565 & 3887, 3888/Mum/2015 M/s Eleve corporation Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the scheme of the section in the following words:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sesa Goa Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 2016

51. Similarly, in the case of A. S. CLITTRES D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA-II reported in (1997) 9 SCC 546 , once again, after reproduction of section 172 of the IT Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India SRP 68/79 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2016 00:01:20 ::: ITXA989.15.doc explained the scheme of the section in the following words:-
Bombay High Court Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sesa Goa Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 2016

51. Similarly, in the case of A. S. CLITTRES D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA-II reported in (1997) 9 SCC 546 , once again, after reproduction of section 172 of the IT Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India SRP 68/79 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2016 00:01:14 ::: ITXA989.15.doc explained the scheme of the section in the following words:-
Bombay High Court Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Lloyd Triestino vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 July, 1998

11. We are of the view that the assessee is not eligible for the grant of interest under section 244(1A) for the three years in question. We find support for this view in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. S. Glitre D/5I/S Garonne (supra), on which the learned counsel for the assessee relied. The head note of this decision reads as follows :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Taiyo Gyogyo Kabushiki Kaisha on 28 February, 2000

7. A ship which leaves an Indian port and only casually visits is covered by Section 172 in contrast to those who do regular shipping business. Section 44B covers the latter category of persons and in their case, assessment has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act applicable at the rates specified in Section 44B. A person who is required to be covered and controlled by the provisions contained in Section 172 is, therefore, not an assessee. It is to be noted that the provisions of Sections 172(2) and 172(4) are intended to levy and recover tax in specified cases before the end of the previous year or before the ship or vessel leaves the port, It is not a substitute for assessment on the total income of a non-resident engaged in shipping business. The Act does not require piece-meal assessments of total income. Otherwise, it would result in different assessments for the same assessment year on the same person in the same capacity. Such a situation is not contemplated under the Income-tax Act. The decision in A S. Glittre's case [1997] 225 ITR 739 (SC), was rendered in a totally different context and does not throw any light on the dispute at hand. Section 172(4) is a special provision, assessment under which can be described as accelerated or ad hoc assessment. Each of such assessments can be viewed as ad hoc or provisional or special purpose assessment. The Assessing Officer is not precluded from resorting to Section 44B of the Income-tax Act in respect of freight paid or payable on account of carriage of passengers, livestock, mail or goods shipped at any port in India and the amount received or deemed to be received in India on account of carriage of such items shipped at any port outside India. Unless assessment was made in terms of Section 44B, it cannot be said that the owner of the ship or charterer had been assessed on the total income under the Income-tax Act. The stand of the Revenue that the assessment under Sub-section (2) of Section 172 was itself an assessment of total income cannot be accepted, as before the Assessing Officer could proceed on that basis, either the assessee should have exercised option under Section 172(7) or the Assessing Officer should have made an assessment in terms of Section 44B of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were, therefore, justified in their conclusion that tax under the Act is not leviable.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next