Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing J.R. Patel And Sons Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 19 October, 1962

J.R. Patel And Sons (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 14 August, 1967

18. It was sought to be urged before us on behalf of the revenue by the learned Advocate-General that the statement furnished by the assessee as part of the additional evidence shows that from 1956, though the assessee-company went on receiving larger amounts of managing agency commission than before, still, after payment of the remuneration to A.J. Patel, the net amount left with the assessee-company was more or less the same in all the years since 1956. We do not agree with this submission. The question that has to be considered is not what the assessee-company actually received but what the assessee-company was expected to receive even by way of indirect benefit at the time when it entered into this agreement with A.J. Patel after April 1, 1956. Applying the well-known decision which we have referred to above as regards the notions of commercial expediency and the principles to be applied as to when an amount paid can be said to be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee-company, we have come to the conclusion the in the instant case, the excess remuneration over the sum of Rs. 12,000 paid by the assessee-company to A.J. Patel was wholly and exclusively expended by it for the purpose of its business and was, hence, a deductible allowance within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Punjabhai Shah on 11 August, 1967

Again, the bare fact that the explanation offered by the assessee in assessment proceedings was rejected and it was held in those proceedings that he had concealed his income or that the explanation was unsatisfactory by itself cannot be made the basis of the conclusion that he has been guilty of deliberately concealing the particulars of his income. No doubt, if the assessee's explanation is found to be deliberately false, then it is possible to infer that he concealed his income. But the authority competent to impose penalty must expressly find that the assessee's explanation is false. These principles have been laid down in 1958-34 ITR 98 : (AIR 1950 Bom 96) (Supra), Khemraj Chagganlal v. Commr. of Income Tax, 1960-38 ITR 523 : (AIR 1960 Pat 252), Bhagwandas Shyam-sunder v. Commr. of Income Tax 1962-45 ITR 566 (Pat), Mohd. Atiq v. Income Tax, Officer (1962) 46 ITR 452 (All) P.K. Kalasami Nadar v. Commr. of Income Tax, 1962-46 ITR 1056 (Mad), Maney and Co. v. Commr. of Income Tax, 1963-47 ITR 434 (Ker), Lakshmi Narain Shambhuram v. Commr. of Income Tax 1963-49 ITR 350 (Pat), M. Hussain All and Sons v. Commr. of Income Tax 1965-58 ITR 787 (Mad), Mohan Ram Ram Kumar v. Commr. of Income Tax 1966-59 ITR 135 (All) and S. Paramasiva Mudaliar and Sons v. Commr. of Income Tax 1966-60 ITR 283 (Mad).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 November, 2011

This miscellaneous application is filed by the revenue and it was contended in the miscellaneous application that as per the impugned tribunal order, the tribunal has quashed the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 148 by stating that no addition was made on the reasons recoded for reopening of assessment. It was submitted in the miscellaneous application that as per Explanation (3) to Section 147, the A.O. can make addition in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 2 M.A.No. 91/Ahd/2010 147 even if the reason for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of Section 148. It is also contended in the miscellaneous application that as per the judgment of Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of B T Patil and Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT in I.T.A.No. 1408, 1409/Pune/2003, it was decided by the tribunal that the law governing the issue as standing on the date of passing the order has to be applied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit Cc-6, New Delhi vs Assessee on 12 June, 2000

7. Before the CIT(A) the assessee made similar arguments. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding observed that the AO had relied on clauses (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) of the MOU to arrive at his conclusion. Rest of other clauses i.e. (i), (ii), (vii), (viii), (ix) & (x) were totally ignored by the AO and had drawn conclusion on the basis of points which he has mentioned in the assessment order. Clause (ii) clearly states that the second party agrees to take the entire development work project including the work done, in progress and also the transactions of advances etc. which are not in a final stage from the first party in a phased manner by 31st March, 1996. Further clause (vii) of MOU also stated that the assessee shall provide all necessary assistance/information to the second party as regards the work done, work in progress and works to be executed in respect of the said project to the second party. Since the project was handed over in phased manner during the period of two years the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 20 ITR 1 (SC); J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 69 ITR 782; Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 86 ITR 11 and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. 7 CIT, 69 ITR 379. The learned CIT(A) finally concluded that the observation of the AO was not in conformity with the Memorandum of Understanding and the facts of the case. The expenditure made by the assessee was the business exigency and directly related to the transfer of project brought over in two years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1