Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Express News Papers Ltd on 21 January, 1998

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Express News Papers Ltd on 28 January, 2020

2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 28.1.2020 in T.C.1439/2008, etc. CIT v. Express News Papers 4/5 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Triveni Engineering And Industries ... vs Dcit on 22 November, 2004

The learned representative of the assessee also argued that the issue of notice to the amalgamating company subsequent to the amalgamation become effective is bad in law and void ab-initio. The learned representative of the assessee relied upon decision of Madras High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Express News Paper [40 ITR 38] and Order of Bombay Bench of ITAT reported in 41 TTJ 301 in the matter of Makers Development Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The learned representative of the assessee further submitted that Section 124 of the I.T.Act defines territorial jurisdiction and transfer of file under Section 127 of the I.T.Act can be made in the case of existing assessee, but, in this case amalgamating ceased to exist. Therefore, there cannot be transfer of file. The learned representative of the assessee further submitted that jurisdiction by acquiescence is not valid in law. He has relied upon decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter 138 ITR 734 [SWARAN YASH].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

C.I.T. Mumbai City Xiv, Mumbai vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission, ... on 28 July, 2000

(v) It was not permissible for Respondent No. 2 to go on disclosing income in one after another installments. Section 245-C(1) contemplates, true and full disclosure of the income with other material particulates and the manner in which same was derived in the application under rule 44-C without playing any game of hide and seek. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Express News Papers Ltd.,' and subsequent Judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of V. M. Shaik Mohammed Rowther v. Settlement Commission (I.T. & W.T.).
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 13 - V C Daga - Full Document

V.C.Mohan vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Air) on 23 October, 2007

20. It is to be seen that the situations are totally different in the Supreme Court cases, in the sense, that the Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as they were obtaining during the relevant period 1978 and 1979 i.e., prior to the amendment incorporated in the year 1991, which is amply clear from paragraph No.15 of the Express News Paper case ((1994) 2 SCC 374), wherein it has been categorically stated that it was not necessary to notice the effect of the legislative change brought about in 1991. The amendment incorporated in the provision in the year 1991 has completely changed the law, which fact has not been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Further, there is a clear distinction in the Income-tax Act provisions and provisions contained in the Customs Act. In the Income-tax law, application for settlement must be made before the investigation has started or before the statutory authority has collected any material or any notice is issued to the applicant. Further there must be a voluntary aspect in the disclosure of fact in concealment. On the contrary, in the provisions of the Customs Act, it is mandatory that the applicant could file an application only after show cause notice is issued, which show cause notice would pertain even for confiscation of goods on the ground of fraud or smuggling or deliberate mis-declaration. Such show cause notice is condition precedent before making an application. Having regard to the above statutory ingredient, there could never be any case of filing of an application under Section 127-B before initiation of any action by the Department or of voluntary aspect under the Customs Act.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Shri Jaywant S. Pattani, Huf,, ... vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 20 June, 2018

"... It is true that from juristic point of view the company is Q legal personality entirely distinct from its members and the company is capable of enjoying rights and being subjected to duties which are not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its members. But in certain exceptional cases the Court is entitled to lift the veil of the corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade... ."(p. 710) 13.3.3 In the case of CIT vs. Indian Express News Papers 238 ITR 70 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Saurashtra Packaging P. Ltd. on 26 July, 2002

13. Under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the corresponding provisions were contained in Section 26(2) of the said Act. However, it had a limited application. It applied to succession to a business, profession or vocation. Succession to any source of income other than business, profession or vocation did not come within the purview of Section 26(2) of the 1922 Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Express News Papers Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 250 that both Section 26(2) and the proviso thereto dealt with any profits and gains of a business, profession or vocation; they did not provide for the assessment of income under any other head, e.g. capital gains. In an assessment made on the successor under the proviso to Section 26(2), capital gains made by the predecessor could not be included, and therefore the amount which represented the capital gains of the predecessor on the sale of its machinery could not be brought to tax in the assessment of the successor under Section 26(2) of the 1922 Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document
1   2 Next