Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.93 seconds)

Jadavbhai R.Patel, Bhavnagar vs Department Of Income Tax

5.41 As regards the decision in the case of J.K. Industries Limited and another(supra) relied upon by the ld. AR , we find that the said decision is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. In that decision, issue was as to whether the Central Government has power to adopt accounting standards by framing the rules and making them mandatory for the purpose the Companies Act,1956? Hon'ble Apex Court held that Accounting Standard 22, which is made mandatory, provides an internal legitimate aid to the meaning of the words in the Companies Act, including Sch. VI, namely, liability, provision for taxes on income, book profit, net profit, depreciation, amortization etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned rules framed under s. 642(1) constitute an act on the part of the rule making authority, namely, the Central Government, in excess of its powers under s. 642(1) of the Companies Act. The impugned rule/notification is valid. It has nexus with the matters entrusted to the Central Government to be covered by appropriate rules. Therefore, the impugned rule is valid as it has nexus with statutory functions entrusted to Central Government which is the rule making authority under the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parna Industries Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax

As regards levy of penalty on estimated additions, the assessee relied on the judgments in the case of CIT vs Subhash Trading Co 221 ITR 110 (Guj); CIT vs Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC); Paramount Radio Services vs ITD (1990) 36 TTJ 464 (Ahd); Jumabhai Premchand (HUF) vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 812 (Guj); CIT vs Suresh Kumar Bansal (2002) 254 ITR 130 (P&H); ITO vs Kwality Spinners (2003) SOT 323 (Chd); Harigopal Singh vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H); Haryana Delhi Tpt. Commission Agency vs ACIT (2001) 79 ITD 145 (Agra); CIT vs Prem Das (No.1)(2001) 248 ITR 234 (P&H); CIT vs Ra vail Singh & Co (2002) 122 Taxman 831 (P&H); Hari Om Kumar Umesh Chand vs ITO (2002) 124 Taxman 213 (Agra)(Mag); Dr Ravi Paul vs ACIT (2002) 74 TTJ 146 (Asr); CIT vs MM Rice Mills (2002) 123 Taxman 308 (P&H); ITO vs Smt. Puirnima Devi Gupta (2004) 3 SOT 753 (Jodh); Bipra Investments & rusts (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2004) 3 SOT 897 (Ahd); Samaj Ram Soni vs ACIT (2004) 84 TTJ 27 (Jodh); CIT vs Aarkay Saree Museum 187 ITR 147 (Bom); Balamakrishna Engg Construction Corporation vs DCIT 56 ITD 411 (Hyd).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shah Gems, Surat vs Department Of Income Tax

"8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Rajesh P. Soni Vs ACIT (supra) in which it was held that purchases made by assessee having been property recorded in books of account and supported by authenticated purchase bills/vouchers, for which payments were made through banking channels, and sales against these purchases are not doubted, addition under section 69 was not justified merely because suppliers could not be located and were not produced for examination.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1