Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 251 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Gurjargravures Private Limited on 8 November, 1977

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Western Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September, 1984

"We are of the opinion that when there is sufficient evidence on record to support a claim, neither the AAC nor the Tribunal is barred from entertaining a claim on the basis of the evidence on record which is sufficient is support the claim. The decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. , therefore, is no bar to the entertaining of the claim by the AAC or the Tribunal, in view of the fact that all the necessary material for allowing a claim under s. 80J(1) was before the ITO."
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Late Begum Noor Banu Alladin And Anr. on 21 April, 1993

78. On the facts stated in the judgment, it is not clear whether the claim under section 80J(1) was made for the first time before the Tribunal Perhaps, that is the inference which has to be drawn from the question framed. IT is also not clear as to what exactly was the scope of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Be that as it may, the only contention raised and answered by the Division Bench was whether the ratio of the Judgment in Gurjargravures P. Ltd.'s case , would apply. It was held that there was sufficient basis and evidence on record to allow the claim under section 80J (1) and, therefore, the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court has no application. The learned judges have not decided the larger question that arises before us. In so far as this judgment is construed as laying down a principle that an additional relief could for the first time before the Tribunal irrespective of the fact whether it was claimed earlier or not. With great respect, we overrule, the said judgment to that the extent.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 74 - Cited by 39 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1992

CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1, was also distinguished by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 778. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also said that the Appellate Tribunal disposing of an appeal under the Income-tax Act has got the power to allow the assessee to put forward a new claim, notwithstanding the fact that such a claim was not raised by him before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner provided that there is sufficient material on record to allow such a claim.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 60 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Parekh Brothers vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 17 August, 1983

CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd., [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), construing the appellate power, should apply. It is trite law that argument by way of analogy is to be resorted to with extreme care andcaution. We are of the opinion that the scope of the appellate power specified in Section 251 of the I.T. Act and the scope of the revisional power vested in the Commissioner under Section 264 of the I.T. Act are entirely different. Because of the express provision in the statute, the AAC has got the power even to enhance an assessment.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 28 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Smartchem Technologies Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 28 July, 2005

It is now to be considered whether the CIT(A) can adjudicate the ground related to this claim. The issue has been settled by two decisions of the Supreme Court one, in the case of Addl. CIT v. Guijargravures (P) Ltd. and another in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT . In the former case, the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether a new claim made before the first appellate authority for deduction in respect of tax holiday profits under Section 84 can be made when the same was not made by the assessee before the AO nor was there any material on record supporting such a claim. The apex Court held that the first appellate authority cannot entertain the new claim made before him. In the said case, the Supreme Court made it clear that their Lordships were not called upon to consider a case where the assessee failed to make a claim though there were evidence on record to support it, or a case where a claim was made but no evidence or insufficient evidence was adduced in support thereof.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 85 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

C.I.T., M.P., Bhopal vs M/S Nirbheram Deluram on 5 March, 1997

In taking this view the High Court has places reliance on the decision of this Court in Additional commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1, wherein it was held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to grant exemption under Section 84 of the Act since the Income Tax Officer did not considered the time form the point of view of its non-taxability. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the Revenue has filed this appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 49 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next