Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (3.47 seconds)
Documents citing Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 March, 1973

Ito, Exemption Ward , Ghaziabad vs United Educational Society C/O Nimt ... on 28 June, 2019

32. In rejoinder the Ld. Counsel submitted that in the present case the AO has carried out the verification to find out the correct financials and that's why special auditor was appointed. The special auditor has referred to the balance sheet and income and expenditure account submitted by the assessee along with return 52 as giving a true and fair view with subject to the observation as per Annexure- A attached with the special auditors report. Thus, the financials submitted by the assessee along with the return having been verified by the AO himself through the Special Auditor, that financial itself should be the basis of computation of income. It was submitted that the judgment in the case of Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. vs. CIT 95 ITR 375 is not applicable in the present case as in that case the dispute was the stock as per the books of accounts and the stock pledged with the bank. The stock was pledged which means that it was physically available with the bank and hence, what was stated in the balance sheet was not correct.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 90 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The Dcit(Osd), Circle-8,, Ahmedabad vs M/S. Torrent Cables Ltd.,, Ahmedabad on 29 October, 2018

Considering all these aspects of the case, we are of the considered view that the decision of CIT v. Khan and Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills [20061 200 CTR 595 is applicable to the present case, wherein the decision in the case of Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd, v. CIT [ 1974] 95 19 ITA Nos. 1293/Ahd/14, 2409/Ahd/15 & ITA No. 564/Ahd/2017 .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Technical Glass Industries vs Asstt. Cit on 7 November, 2002

11. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would show that there is clear finding of the assessing officer that the'stocks were pledged with the bank and not hypothecated with the bank. Despite this finding, the assessee raised no such contention before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is for the first time that the assessee has contended that the books (sic-stocks) were not pledged but merely hypothecated with the bank. However, the assessee has placed no evidence before the Tribunal that the stock was merely hypothecated and not pledged with the bank. Therefore, no reliance can be made to the decision referred to by the learned counsel. Thus, the learned Departmental Representative has further argued in support of the order passed by the assessing officer. A reliance in this connection has been made to the decisions in the case of Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 651 (All), Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), Kaila Sweet Suppler v. CIT (1998) 100 Taxman 59 (All) and Century Foams (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 625 (All).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S.Valliammai Society vs The Director General Of Income-Tax on 19 March, 2010

 It is true that the decisions referred to above establish the position that it is for the revenue to show that a particular receipt is an income, that whether the explanation given by the assessee as to the source of that receipt is acceptable or not is primarily a matter for the Tribunal and that the explanation of the assessee as to the source from which the receipts had been obtained had to be considered in the light of all the facts and circumstances. The assessee, relying upon these decisions, points out that the Tribunal was not justified in drawing the inference that the excess stocks of cotton should represent the assessee's income, merely because the assessee's explanation that there were no excess stocks was not acceptable.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Apco Motors(India) Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 March, 2015

the onus to prove that books of account alone give the correct picture and the statement given to the bank was motivated. In the present case at hand, it is not disputed by the Revenue that in order to avail of cash credit facility against hypothecation of stock to the bank, the assessee has submitted the inflated stock and not the actual stock. The inflated stock was hypothetical and not pledged. The bank official had not verified the said statement showing the inflated stock so produced by the assessee or the same was ascertained from the bank. Considering all these aspects of the case, we are of the considered view that the decision of CIT vs. Khan & Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills (2006) 200 CTR (All) 595 is applicable to the present case, wherein the decision in the case of Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has been relied on. In the case of Ashok Kumar vs. ITO (2006) 201 CTR (J&K) 178, the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has held :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shib Sankar Das on 29 June, 2017

Be that as it may, it is unnecessary for us to say anything further on that matter, in view of the fact that even by applying the decision in Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 375 (Mad), the result reached by the Tribunal can be sustained. The Division Bench in that case accepted the argument that was advanced by the Revenue that the question whether an explanation offered by the assessee is acceptable or not is a pure question of fact, and that this court is not entitled to examine the correctness of such a finding on a reference. On the facts of that case, the Tribunal had rejected that explanation and this court after examining the facts upheld the rejection. Here the situation is reversed. The Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the assessee and it is the Revenue which wants that order of the Tribunal to be set aside on the ground that the explanation could not have been accepted. The rejection of the explanation was a matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction and the question decided by it is a question of fact. We, therefore, do not see any scope for interference with the order of the Tribunal."
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - A Bose - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next