Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Naubatram Nandram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 November, 1971

Acit.,Anand Circle,, Anand vs National Dairy Development Board, ... on 7 November, 2016

"3.2 I have carefully considered facts of the case and appellant's submissions. Assessing Officer has not specified, under which particular section of the Income-tax Act, the provision written back is taxed by him, even though reference appears to be section 41(1) only in view of AO's finding in para 8.7 of assessment order that "write back of the provision can only be claimed as a deduction, if it is proved by the assessee that the provision made in earlier year was disallowed and subjected to tax". The principle used by the. Assessing Officer is of section 41 (1) only. For applying section 41(1), there must be an actual allowance made of. some expenditure or trading liability in the assessment of the assessee in earlier year. The question of allowance of any expense or trading liability is with reference to "Assessment" only so far as application of section 41 (1) is concerned. Without there being allowance or deduction of expense or trading liability in an "assessment ", section 41 (1) has no application. Courts have held that section 41(1) has no application, 'even in those cases where income in the assessment was determined as percentage of turnover/ sales and the expenditure in question was not actually allowed as deduction. It was held in the case of Naubatram Nandram vs. CIT (1972) 86 ZTR 805 (MP) that section 10(2A) of 1922 Act [same us section 41 (1) oj'1961 Act] is applicable only where a deduction or allowance is actually allowed to 'the assessee ITA No. 1041 & 1225/Ahd/2012 29 Asst. Year 2008-09 in earlier year and not to a case where merely income is estimated as a percentage of estimated sales value.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 49 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Income-Tax Officer. on 29 November, 1983

The reliance of the learned authorised a representative for the assessee on the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Naubatram Nandram v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 805 is again misplaced because in that case the income-tax authorities calculated profits on the basis of estimated sales as the figures disclosing sales in timber for each year given by the assessee were not accepted. In that case, in the computation of profit there was never any occasion for the making of any allowance or deduction in the assessment for any year. Apparently, facts of the instant case are quite different.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Thakurdas on 22 November, 1982

4. The learned counsel for the department conceded that the provisions of Section 176(3A) of the Act were not attracted in the instant case and that in view of the findings of the Tribunal that the amount in question was received by the assessee when the assessee had ceased to carry on any business, the Tribunal was right in upholding the view of the AAC that the sum received by the assessee-firm from the Railways during the assessment year in question was not chargeable to tax as business profits. As regards chargeability under Section 41(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has found that the conditions prescribed for charging tax under Section 41(1) of the Act were not fulfilled. A Division Bench of this court has held in Naubatram Nandram v. CIT, [1972] 86 ITR 805, that Section 10(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to Section 41(1) of the Act, envisages an actual allowance or deduction and not a notional one. In view of this decision, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act were not applicable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Thakurdas Jaiparvesh & Co. on 22 November, 1984

3. The ld. counsel for the department conceded that provisions of s. 176(3A) of the Act were not attracted in the instant case and that in view of the findings of the Tribunal that the amount in question was received by the assessee when the assessee had ceased to carry on any business, the Tribunal was right in upholding the view of the AAC that the sum received by the assessee-firm from the Railways during the assessment year in question was not chargeable to tax as business profits. As regards chargeability under s. 41(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has found that the conditions prescribed for charging tax under s. 41(1) of the Act were not fulfilled. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Naubatram Nandram v. CIT, M.P. (1972) 86 ITR 805 (MP) that s. 10(2A) of the IT Act, 1922, corresponding to s. 41(1) of the Act, envisages an actual allowance or deduction and not a notional one. In view of this decision, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 41(1) of the Act were not applicable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1