Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax,U.P., ... vs British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur on 3 February, 1987

Greater Ludhiana Area Development ... vs Assessee

This issue came up for consideration of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd.. In that case, the assessee was having two W oollen Mills located in Kanpur (U.P) and another mill in Gurdaspur (Punjab). The assessee filed return of income for Assessment year 1994-95 which was processed by the Assessing Officer Central circle (1), Kanpur (U.P). Later on notices u/s 143(2) were issue and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on Sept 7, 1977 after making certain addition. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Kanpur. During the course of appeal proceedings an additional ground with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer by Central circle (1) was also raised because assessment filed stood transferred from ITO Central Circle 1, Kanpur to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range-D, Kanpur by order dated July 1, 1977. Therefore according to the assessee the assessment order was void ab-initio. The appellate authority considered the appeal on merits as well as on question of jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed in part on merit.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 165 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hero Honda Motors Ltd,, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 2 February, 2017

7. The aforesaid legal position finds resonance in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC), CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. [1996] 218 ITR 337 (SC) and CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 314 (SC). These were not cases of outright sale of technical information and know-how and what was granted was non-exclusive or non-transferable right to use.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 72 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Acit, Cc-I, Lucknow vs M/S. Seasons Realty Pvt. Ltd.,, Lucknow on 12 October, 2021

Learned CIT, D.R., further submitted that this issue of not falling these years within the six assessment years was taken first before learned CIT(A) and, therefore, keeping in view the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. British India Corporation Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 64 (All) should have given opportunity to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate on this ground. In view of these facts and circumstances, it was argued that learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed relief to the assessee and therefore, it should be reversed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Cc-I, `Lucknow vs Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Lucknow on 20 October, 2021

3. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that a search had taken place on 21/04/2016 on the Fortuna Group and whereby the case of these assessees along with cases of other assessees were reopened u/s 153A and the Assessing Officer had made certain additions which the learned CIT(A) has deleted by holding that the assessments in these cases stood completed and therefore, the additions, if any, could have been made only on the basis of incriminating material. Learned CIT, D.R. in this respect submitted that while holding so, learned CIT(A) has not taken into account the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Arora wherein the Hon'ble court has held that during proceedings u/s 153A, the Assessing Officer is all empowered to make addition or make reassessment, even without the incriminating material. It was submitted that such judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was a binding judgment as it was delivered by jurisdictional High Court. Learned CIT, D.R. further submitted that learned CIT(A) has annulled the assessment without appreciating that the term I.T.(SS)A. Nos.250 & 251/Lkw/2020 7 Assessment Years:2013-14 & 14-15 incriminating has not been defined u/s 153A of the Act and therefore, its meaning is required to be inferred harmoniously with other provisions of the Act. It was argued that unsupported entries appearing in the books of account can also fall under the term 'incriminating documents' and hence, the meaning of term 'incriminating' was required to be inferred harmoniously with respect to the such statutory provisions. Learned CIT, D.R. argued that the assessee had earned bogus Long Term Capital Gain from penny stock through shell companies and the Director of shell companies had admitted to be engaged in providing accommodation entries. It was further argued that the assessee had taken the issue of notice u/s 153A before the learned CIT(A) for the first time and the Assessing Officer should have been given opportunity by calling a remand report from him in view of ratio of decision in the case of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court CIT vs. British Corporation Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 64 (All). It was submitted that learned CIT(A) has not appreciated that the bogus entries even recorded in the books of account cannot by itself take such entries out of the sweep of being incriminating and the burden u/s 68 of the Act could not said to have been discharged by the assessee in view of the fact that Directors of these companies had admitted that they were engaged in providing accommodation entries. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) had himself confirmed the addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain in the case of some individual assessees in the same group and therefore, it was argued that the order passed by learned CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hiton Roulunds Ltd. on 22 December, 2004

In the case of CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. (supra), the apex Court has held that a fixed amount to be paid to the distributor for establishing the distributorship and for obtaining know-how of specific bading process is a revenue expenditure. According to this agreement, the assessee had agreed to pay the distributor 5 per cent of the selling price of its products produced by the process disclosed to it. But the instant case, the facts are different as lump sum amount was paid for acquiring to use the trade-mark for unlimited period.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next