Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. vs B.J. Chackoo, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 4 August, 1962

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Patnaik And Co. P. Ltd. on 11 January, 1974

25. In the case of New Prasad Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972J 85 ITR 480 (Bom), the case of the assessee was that it purchased the shares of Jupiter for boosting up their prices and their selling them at a profit and not for acquiring control either of that company or of East and West and that was finally accepted. In that case, the revenue relied on the following circumstances, namely, (1) the business of the assessee is to manufacture and sell textiles and not to deal in shares ; (2) the assessee had not done any trading transactions in the past; (3) the purchase price paid by the assessee in 1947 was far above the market price ; (4) the assessee unwillingly accepted the shares of East and West which a trader will normally not do; and (5) that after the acquisition of the first block of shares, three directors were appointed on the board of Jupiter who were intimately associated with the affairs of the assessee. Their Lordships held that these circumstances are relevant and must be taken into account for determining whether the loss claimed by the assessee is a trading loss ; but that they cannot be considered in isolation, and that the circumstances were incapable of supporting the inference that the assessee had acquired a capital asset. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the ultimate finding went in favour of the assessee.
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Srivilliputhur Co-Op. Spg. Mills Ltd. vs Second Income-Tax Officer on 15 October, 1984

In the second year, the terms are in Tamil and are to similar effect. The additional payment was made for cordial and smooth working of the Mills due to the co-operation of labour. It was, therefore, not a payment linked with the profit but a payment out of commercial expediency which would have the effect of securing co-operation in the succeeding year also in the hope of getting such a payment. The extra amount paid really partakes of a nature of ex gratia payment and does not partake of a nature of bonus. The Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979J 118 ITR 261 had occasion to consider the ambit of the provisions of Section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act of 1961, and observed as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1