Smt. Lucy Kochuvareed vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 7 August, 1970
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sheik Abdul Kadir Maracayar (1928) A. I. R. 1928 Mad. 257 (F.B.).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.75 seconds)Documents citing
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sheikh Abdul Kadir Marakayar And Co. on 5 May, 1927
Balaji Paper Boards (P) Ltd. And Premier ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 October, 1998
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Sheik Abdul Kadir Maracayar & Co. AIR 1928 Madras 257:
The Dcit vs Koatex Infrastructure Ltd. on 12 August, 2005
Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Rohtas Industries Ltd. on 30 January, 1978
45. It has been found by the Tribunal in this case that the advances made by the assessee were for the purpose of securing raw materials and that the same were advanced wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The Tribunal has found further that there was nothing unusual in the assessee making such advances when the entire output of Rohtas Quarries Ltd. was being supplied to the assessee. These findings have not been challenged. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the said amounts were a debt due to the assessee from Rohtas Quarries Ltd., and the same arose out of and as an incident of the business of the assessee. On the authority of Abdullabhai Abdulkadar's case , it must be held that the loss of this sum was not a capital loss.
Gajo Ram Basant Ram And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 1955
Learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the same principle should govern the present case and the limitation of time laid down in the proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 10 should apply to the power of review given under Sub-section (4) of Section 20.
Sri Srinivasa Theatre, ... vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 10 July, 2001
12. The next decision relied upon the learned Counsel is in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Marcayar & Co. (supra). In this case the Madras High Court held that :
F.K. Hasheeb And Co. vs The State Of Madras on 19 August, 1964
22., Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Sheikh Abdul Kadir Maraktyar & Co. (1928) 54 M.L.J. 298and of the Privy Council is Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 I.T.R. 414. We do not propose to discuss the facts of thsse cases or refer to the observations in them as regards the proper construction of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act because in our opinion there is no real analogy between Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The scheme of the two enactments is wholly different. The language employed in Section 34 of the Income-tax Act which has undergone serious changes from time to time is not identical with that in Rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and the mere fact that both these provisions are designed to achieve a somewhat similar purpose is too slender a foundation for the application of the cases construing one provision for determining the scope of the other. We therefore propose to confine our attention to the language used in the two Rules 14(2) and 17(1) and gather the intention of the rule-making authority as expressed by words employed.
Aaswa Trading & Exports Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee
Reliance is also placed on the decision of Apex
Court in the case of CIT vs. Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar
(1961) 41 ITR 545 (SC) & Madras High Court's decision
in the case of CIT vs. Dhanlakshmi Corporation (19«) 46
ITR 1031 (Mad).
Anang Polyfil Pvt.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee
Reliance is also placed on the decision of Apex
Court in the case of CIT vs. Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar
(1961) 41 ITR 545 (SC) & Madras High Court's decision
in the case of CIT vs. Dhanlakshmi Corporation (19«) 46
ITR 1031 (Mad).
Tube Investments Of India Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 January, 2016
16. Relying upon the decision reported in CIT vs. Abudullabhai Abdul Kadar, [(1961) 41 ITR 545 SC], the Assessing Officer held that as the debt due was not an incident to the business, it cannot be termed as a debt and no deduction can be made on account of bad debt and that it should be construed as a capital loss. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the said Judgment and the same reads as under: