Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 575 (2.22 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962

James Finlay & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 December, 1980

The Supreme Court, after setting out the relevant passage from the decision in the case of CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. Ltd. , referred to the decision in the case of Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT , and observed that the real question for decision was whether the income had really accrued or not. It was not a hypothetical accrual of the income that had got to be taken into account but the real accrual of the income. If this concept of the real accrual of income in law and the principle on which the theory of accrual is based were to be taken into account, then, in the light of the facts of this case, where we are dealing with the question of interest, which had not to take into account anything to be done or happening subsequent to the closing of the year of account and the accrual was not dependent on any subsequent making up of the accounts or the company's borrowing acts, then the subsequent conduct, subsequent to the year in which income accrued, cannot, in our opinion, be of any help to the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 30 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii vs Bachubhai Nagindas Shah on 24 September, 1975

20. Now, this passage from Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.'s case is in the context of income falling under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and not under the head "Salaries". This distinction between income chargeable to tax as "Salary" and income chargeable to tax as "Profits and gains of business or profession" is material and what has been said in general terms in the context of income falling under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" cannot apply in the context of income falling under the head "Salaries".
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

State Bank Of Travancore vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 8 January, 1986

Therefore Shoorji Vallabhdas's case must be understood on the footing that because of the desire in November, 1947, the commission did not accrue at the end of the accounting year. In that sense there was no accrual of the income. It may be reiterated that in some limited fields where something which is the reality of the situation prevents the accrual of the income, then the notion of real income i.e. making the income accrue in the real sense of the term can be brought into play but the notion of real income as it shall presently be indicated cannot be brought into play, where income has accrued according to the accounts of the assessee and there is no indication by the assessee to treat the amount as not having accrued. Suspended animation following inclusion of the amount in the suspense account does not negate accrual and after the event of accrual, corroborated by appropriate entry in the books of account, on the mere ipse dixit of the assessee, no reversal of the situation can be brought about.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 520 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Vidarbha Industries Power Limited , ... vs Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 19 August, 2024

In CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC)], it was held as follows: (ITR p. 148) "... Income tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in bookkeeping, an entry is made about a 'hypothetical income', which does not materialise. Where income has, in fact, been received and is subsequently given up in such circumstances that it remains the income of the recipient, even though given up, the tax may be payable. Where, however, the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs Dcit, Circle- 16(2), Delhi on 1 December, 2017

58. We will now dwell uponthe core issue raised by the parties, that is, whether the sale consideration of Rs.1241.32 crores can be said to have been "accrued" to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in detail herein above, within the expression used in section 48. Section 48 envisages that income must have been received or have accrued under section 48 as result of the transfer of a capital asset. The income may be said to have been 'accrued' if the assessee acquires the right to receive the income from the contractual obligation or as per any other legal obligation. It is sine-qua-non that the assessee must have acquired the right to receive the income and there is corresponding debt owed to him by somebody. The concept of accrual of income have been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Shoorjee Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 88 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P. Nataraja Sastri on 29 April, 1975

After referring to the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., the Supreme Court pointed out that in the case before them the amounts of income were given up unilaterally after they had accrued to the appellant-company, so that it could not escape liability to tax. In the case before the Supreme Court the assessee was entitled to remuneration under the managing agency agreement for the years 1954 and 1955, For the relevant years the assessee relinquished the commission, and the question was whether the relinquishment affected the taxability of the amount that had already accrued. The Supreme Court upheld the assessment on the ground that the income having accrued was liable to tax, even if it was subsequently waived. The waiver in such a case would only be an application of the income. It is this principle which applies here.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

O/Taxap/554/2003 Judgment vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 March, 2014

The  Court, referring to the decision in case of CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Company  [Supra]  observed  that   it   is  well­settled   that   income­tax  cannot   be  levied   on  Page 26 of 31 O/TAXAP/554/2003                                                                                                 JUDGMENT hypothetical income. The Court further held and observed as under :­ "20. It follows from these decisions that income accrues when it  becomes   due   but   it   must   also   be   accompanied   by   a  corresponding liability of the other party to pay the   amount.  Only then can it be said that for the purposes of taxability that  the income is not hypothetical and it has really accrued to the  assessee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next