Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (2.31 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... vs Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. on 9 June, 1980

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Raj Trading Co. on 14 March, 1995

3. In the second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was found that the assessee has not made any entries of accounts to disguise the real transaction. It is clearly stated in the books of account that the payment was for difference amount paid to the contract parties. From the books of account, therefore, it was for the Income-tax Officer to examine the correct factual position and the assessee could also consider that such payment of difference could be considered as damages for breach of contract and not speculation loss and reliance has been placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Anglo-Indian Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 384. In these circumstances, it was held that no facts have been suppressed by the assessee and/or made to appear in a way that the apparent state of affairs was not real. It was for the Income-tax Officer to examine the facts and come to the proper conclusion as he has evidently done. The charge of concealment of income, therefore, was held not sustainable and the penalty was cancelled.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - V G Palshikar - Full Document

Essar Steel Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 September, 2005

8.3 In the case of Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), the assessee who was engaged in the manufacture of jute goods wanted to import certain machinery and in that connection obtained the licence and placed the order for the machinery. In order to safeguard the financial deal it entered into the contract like the assessee, with the State Bank of India for the purchase of sterling. The assessee did not advance anything to the bank against this contract. In the meantime the Indian rupee was devalued and as a result the cost of the machinery increased by more than fifty per cent. The RBI also raised objections to the booking of foreign exchange. By the time these difficulties were resolved, the import licence expired and in 1968 the bank cancelled the outstanding balances of the contracts and credited the assessee's account with a sum of Rs. 3,13,651 being the difference in exchange rate less charges. The AO taxed this amount as revenue receipt arising from the assessee's busine Sections The AAC, however, held that the amount was not taxable as income from the business but was assessable as capital gain. But the Tribunal found on material on record that there had been no case of acquisition and, therefore, it was not assessable to capital gain. The Revenue carried the matter to the High Court and the Court held that there was no profit or gain as contemplated under Section 45. The assessee did not spend anything. He got his rights under the contract and transformed that contractual right into monetary right. The amount was obtained not because the assessee surrendered any licence or because the assessee gave up its right under a contract but because the assessee realised its dues or, in other words, the assessee transformed its contractual rights into money and, therefore, was no transfer nor did any profits arise from the receipt which could be considered as capital gain under Section 45 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 158 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit vs Lavish Apartments (P) Ltd. on 21 June, 2004

15. Reliance has next been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Western States Trading Co. Ltd. 80 ITR 21. In this decision, the point in issue was whether dividend income was to be taken as profits of business and set off against business losses brought forward from earlier years under Section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The undisputed facts in this case were that shares were held as part of trading assets of the assessee. The facts of the instant case before us are distinguishable inasmuch as rental income from the property has been shown by the assessee as income from house property obviously on the ground that property is not being used for purposes of business. As we have already discussed above, Section 22 would be applicable only in respect of properties which are not used by the assessee for the purposes of business. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 22 as well as 72 of the Income-tax act, 1961 and the facts of the case before us, the ratio of Western States Trading Co. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Mrs. A. Ghosh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 July, 1982

13. The assessee also relied on a number of cases for the proposition that where the asset was self-created or self-generated, it did not have any cost of acquisition and in a case of that nature tax on capital gains could not be levied. For this proposition reliance was placed on the cases of CIT v. Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 352 (Cal) and CIT v. v. General Investment Co. Ltd. ; but these are cases where the assessee by his own effort created a right and/or an asset and later sold away that right or asset for valuable consideration. But in the case before us the assessee has acquired debentures for valuable consideration. After holding the debentures for sometime the assessee has converted the debentures into shares. The shares have thereafter been sold in the market. It is not a case of creation of an asset by the assessee by his own effort as in the case of goodwill. It is a case of a straight forward transaction in capital assets resulting in profits. Therefore, it will not be right to say that in a case like this Section 45 is not attracted at all.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Central Hatcheries Private Ltd. And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 September, 2007

2. This Court while dealing with the said question after referring to the decisions rendered in the cases of Chainrup Sampatram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1953) 24 ITR 481; Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras v. A.Krihnaswami Mudaliar and Ors. (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44; United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 240 ITR 355; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (Cal) 34; and H.Mohmed & Company v. C.I.T. (Guj.) (1977) 107 ITR 637 in paragraphs 20,21,22 and 23 expressed the opinion as under:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana on 30 May, 2002

The Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd (supra) has again reiterated this position and held that the process of obtaining coffee beans from raw coffee berries tantamounted to manufacturing as the final product was absolutely different and separate from the input. The change made in the article resulted in a new and different article which was recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - N K Sud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next