Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co., ... on 8 December, 1976

Dlf Universal Ltd,, New Delhi vs Assessee on 15 June, 2008

44. The Tribunal while deciding the question as to whether it has power to change the head of income, the draft order holds that the Tribunal has such power under section 254(1) and for this purpose reliance is placed on the decision of special bench of Tribunal in the case of Sumit Bhattacharya which in turn has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gilbert and Barker Mfg. Company 111 ITR 529. The issue before the special bench was whether the amount received by assessee on realization of 'stock appreciation rights' which was per se income but whether chargeable under the head "salaries". There was no dispute as to the nature of receipt which was in the form of income. In such a situation having found that when the amount received was income per se, the Tribunal within its power u/s 254(1) may bring it to tax under any head of income. However in the present case it is not an issue regarding change of head of income but issue is regarding whether there was transfer of stock in trade or capital asset i.e. nature of asset.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asst Cit Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai on 21 May, 2018

Rather, our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-1 Vs. Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co., USA (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom) as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R. The Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction had observed that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow any party to an appeal, may be the appellant or the respondent, to raise a new point or new contention, provided two conditions are satisfied:- (1). No new facts are required to be brought on record for disposing of such new point; and (2). An opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the High Court had specifically stressed that before either of the party is allowed to raise a new point or new contention, the other side is afforded an opportunity to meet the point.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 59 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gitwako Farms (India) Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 15 November, 2011

In CIT v. Gilbert and Barkar Mfg. Co. , the Bombay High Court made no distinction between the appellant and respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal and held that both were entitled to raise new points or contentions subject only to the condition firstly that no new facts are required to be brought on record is capable of being disposed of on the facts on record and secondly that an opportunity is given to the other side to meet that point which is allowed to be raised for the first time in the appeal. This was also a case of the respondent. To the same effect are the decisions of the Allahabad, Gauhati, Kerala and Gujarat High Courts cited on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, whether it is the appellant or the respondent before the Tribunal, new points or contentions can be raised provided they did not involve investigation into facts (as contrasted with the record) and that an opportunity is given to the other side to meet the contentions. Applying these principles to the present case, we overrule the preliminary objection of the Ld. Sr. DR and permit the assessee to raise the new points before us as a respondent."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Modern Threads (India) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 1998

(e) In the case of CIT vs. Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co. (supra), the assessee, a foreign company entered into an agreement with an Indian company under which licence was granted to the Indian company to manufacture, sell and service, gasoline pumps. The Indian company was to pay 5 per cent of the sale price of the pumps and parts as per the agreement. The assessee-company treated the amount as business income and claimed therefrom research and development expenditure contributable to the licence. The Revenue, however, treated the amount received as income from other sources and disallowed the expenditure claimed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held the view that the supply of know-how to others on a licence basis can be regarded as a method of carrying on his business. The principle that is required to be applied is to consider whether, on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the licence granted to make use of know-how is in the nature of applying it in trade. A perusal of the various clauses of the agreement showed that the assessee had not parted with any capital asset. The Hon'ble High Court, therefore, held that income was liable to be taxed as business income and expenses claimed were deductible.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 62 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

J.M. Joshi, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 11 May, 2012

22. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material and decisions relied upon by the parties we are of the view that any party to the appeal can raise a fresh plea subject to the fulfilment of 31 ITA No.IT(SS)A 24/M/2012 Shri J. M. Joshi condition that no new facts are to be brought on record for disposing of such new point and an opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT Vs Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co., USA (supra). However, in view of our finding on the merits of the case whereby the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, we do not propose to adjudicate this new plea raised by the assessee being academic.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next