Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Udhoji Shrikrishnadas on 12 December, 1980

Panasonic Energy India Co.Ltd, Baroda vs Assessee on 15 October, 2012

- The next decision cited by the Ld. A.R. is the judgement of Hon'ble MP High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Udhoji Shrikrishnadas (supra). In that case, the assessee appointed sole selling agent for bidies on payment of commission and it was the case of the revenue that apart from paying the commission to this sole selling agent, bidies sold to him were at less than market price. Under these facts, it was held that profit earned by the selling agent by sale of bidies is not additional commission and the expenditure incurred by the assessee. In the present case, this is not the case of the revenue that the sale price charged by the assessee is lower than the market rates and hence, this judgement is also not applicable in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

United Phosphorus Limited vs Joint Cit on 22 May, 2001

XXII(1) Shri Soparkar, the learned counsel, contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have deleted the addition of Rs. 6,06,726 made in respect of sale of white phosphorus to sister concern, rather than restoring the issue back to the assessing officer. The provisions of section 40A(2) are not applicable in respect of income, as it applies only to expenditure. He relied on the judgment in CIT v. Udhoji Shrikrishnadas (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal in Vikshara Trading & Investment (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (supra). The learned CommissionerDepartmental Representative on the other hand, submitted that the matter was restored back to the assessing officer as the appellant itself was willing to produce further necessary evidence and challans in support of their contention that it was sold at reasonable price to sister concern.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 223 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Ewac Alloys Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1992

and CIT v. Udhoji Slvikrishnadas [1983] 139 ITR 827 (MP). From a study of these two decisions, we find that the ratio of those decisions helps the present assessee not only on the question of applicability of Section 40A(2) but also on the broad question of adding the notional income equal to the difference between the actual price and the selling price as has been alleged in the present case. As regards Section 40(c) no argument was advanced by the learned Departmental Representative, in support of the view that the provisions of that section applied in any way to the facts of the present case. We also find that provisions of that section, in their terms, are not at all attracted in the present case. We further find that no other provision of the IT Act comes to the rescue of the department to enable it to rewrite the selling price of goods and make an addition of the nature as the present one, on that basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.S. Hameed And Ors. vs Director Of State Lotteries And Ors. on 10 November, 2000

A concession or rebate was never considered as the income derived by an assessee, and for the proposition, reliance was placed on CIT v. Udhoji Shrikrishnadas [1983] 139 ITR 827 (MP). Cqunsel also referred to the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, quoted in [1991] 192 ITR (St.) 273, and contended that it had never been visualised that in the case at hand, a tax under Section 194G was justified.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 22 - M Ramachandran - Full Document

M.S. Hameed vs Director Of State Lotteries on 10 November, 2000

"... It is not understandable as to why a benefit which will not be included in the total income of a person, should be considered as 'income' for the purpose of deduction of tax at source at all. The purpose of deduction of tax at source is not to collect a sum which is not a tax levied under the Act; it is to facilitate the collection of the tax lawfully leviable under the Act. The interpretation put on those provisions by the respondents would result in collection of certain amounts by the State which is not a tax qualitatively. Such an interpretation of the taxing statute is impermissible." (p. 752) According to the counsel, this applies to the situation at hand, and I am of the opinion that the observations are entitled to due weight when the issue is considered. Also I note that the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 2713 of 1996 and connected cases have almost on identical facts held that the discount as now admissible to the lottery agents is not taxable under section 194G. The decision in Udhoji Shrikrishna Das' case (supra) cited by the petitioners does not appear to be relevant to the facts of the present case. It was a case where the sole selling agency earned profit, in addition to commission, and the additional profit too was to be treated as additional commission. The facts have no application here.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next