Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 249 (2.78 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Culcutta vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd on 14 February, 1989

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karam Chand Thapar And Bros. (Coal ... on 22 July, 1991

Inasmuch as the question regarding the assessability of the amount in question is now pending before the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court in CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 621, on the oral application of counsel for the Revenue, we certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Let the certificate in terms of Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, be issued expeditiously.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Menezes Farmaco on 1 December, 1998

9. The Supreme Court accepted the reasoning of the majority of the High Courts including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Godavari Plywoods Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 632 and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Elys Plastics Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 11 and did not approve the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Jindal Bros. Rice Mills [1989] 179 ITR 470. The Supreme Court held (page 841) :
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - P Upasani - Full Document

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.,, Meerut vs Acit, Meerut on 17 December, 2019

-- (Para -- 4) • Shri Ram Jhanwar Lai vs. ITO & Ors., (2010) 321 ITR 0400, High court of Rajasthan.-- (Para--8) • CIT vs. Jain Construction Co. & Ors., (2000) 245 ITR 0527, High Court of Rajasthan.-- (Para--8) • CIT vs. Chopra Bros. India (P) Ltd., (2001) 252 ITR 0412, High Court of Punjab & Haryana. -- (Para 4-6) • CBDT Circular No: 29-D (XIX-14), dated 31.08.1965-- reproduced in 245 ITR 527 (Raj.) in Para 8.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd, New Delhi vs Assessee

The controversy was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC) wherein the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Janak Tubes Pvt. Ltd. 179 ITR 536 (P&H); and CIT Vs. Jindal Bros. Rice Mills 179 ITR 470 (P & H) have been reversed by holding that where Govt. subsidy is an incentive not for specific purposes of meeting a portion of the cost of the asset though quantified as or geared to a percentage of such cost, it does not partake the character of payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the actual cost.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Raghu Raj Chethley, Moga vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Moga on 29 October, 2019

13.2 The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Br. P. Ltd (supra) clearly held that "It is equally well settled that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinized sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are- perverse.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.R. Desai vs Thirteenth Income-Tax Officer on 26 August, 1993

(vii) In the case of CIT V. Karam Chand Thaper and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 621 (Cal), the question was of under-loading charges remaining with the assessee. It was held that the amounts collected by way of under-loading charges had been received by the assessee as an agent, and, therefore, in a fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the consignees. It was further held that such amounts did not constitute trading receipts and accordingly neither the surplus of the receipts remaining unpaid nor the amounts transferred to the profit and loss account could be assessed as income of the assessee. Obviously, the amounts in question were found on facts to have been collected in a fiduciary capacity. It was also found in that case that some of the consignees had demanded under-charges from the assessee and the latter had passed on the amounts to them. In the instant case, I have already held that, on the facts, the assessee collected the Central excise duty as part of the gross amount of sale proceeds. There was no fiduciary capacity involved in this particular case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next