Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Shantilal Punjabhai on 1 October, 1964

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Maya Ram Jia Lal on 18 October, 1985

10. Adverting to Pioneer Trading Co. P. Ltd.'s case [1968] 70 ITR 347 (Cal), which decision was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 57, we find that there was a real dispute between the contracting parties which was settled and, therefore, it was held that it was not a speculative transaction. On the facts of the present case, the aforesaid case does not help the assessee and the Tribunal erred in applying it to decide the matter in favour of the assessee. Similar is the position of the other two cases referred to by the Tribunal. The facts of those cases are also entirely different and it was shown that there was a real dispute between the parties which was settled.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Aditya Mills Ltd. on 28 October, 1993

To the extent the supply is made, that part of the contract would be outside the purview of Section 43(5). But, where the contract has not been executed in respect of the remaining part and is ultimately settled without actual delivery of the goods, the provisions of Section 43(5) would be attracted. The word "periodically" or "ultimately" makes it clear that the provisions of Section 43(5) are applicable where a part of the contract or the entire contract has been settled otherwise than by actual delivery of the goods. We may also observed that in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 57 (SC), referred to above, it was observed by the apex court that the section speaks of a settlement of the contract and a contract is settled when it is either performed or the promisee dispenses with or remits, wholly or in part, the performance of the promise made to him or accepts, instead of it, any satisfaction which he thinks fit. This judgment of the Supreme Court also makes it clear that even if a part contract is settled otherwise than by way of actual delivery, it will fall within the purview of Section 43(5). In this judgment of the apex court, a distinction has been drawn between the settlement of a contract and the payment on account of breach of contract. For the purpose of settlement of contract, it was held that it would not cover cases where there is a breach of the contract on a dispute between the parties and damages are awarded as compensation by an arbitration award. The award of damages for breach of contract has been considered as not the same thing as a party to the contract accepting satisfaction of the contract, otherwise than in accordance with the original terms thereof. Here also, the parties have accepted satisfaction of the contract otherwise than in accordance with the original terms thereof without effecting delivery of the goods or without there being a breach of the contract by virtue of Section 73 of the Contract Act. It was a case of mutual settlement in terms of the provisions of Section 63 of the Contract Act where parties have accepted a particular sum without delivering the goods. It is also not a case where there were any circumstances for non-delivery of the goods within the extended time either by virtue of any statutory provisions or for reasons which could be said to be beyond the control of the party which makes the performance of the contract impossible. There being no intervening circumstances which should result in any repudiation of the contract and the correspondence referred to above makes it clear that it was the sum mutually agreed between the parties on account of nondelivery of the goods. The entire circumstances have to be seen as a whole and if the contract is settled otherwise than by actual delivery of goods then it will be within the purview of Section 43(5). We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not in accordance with law and, accordingly, it is held that the transactions of Rs. 1,67,371 are speculative transactions which fall within the purview of Section 43(5). Accordingly, it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with regard to the disallowance of Rs. 1,67,371 under Section 43(5). The amount of Rs. 14,893 is not covered by the provisions of Section 43(5) and Rs. 68,620 was rightly deleted as revenue expenditure incurred on the 10th anniversary celebrations of the company. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue and question No. 3 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

C.M. Rajgharia And Anr. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 23 April, 1974

Indeed, the Gujarat High Court has gone a step further in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantilal Punjabhai, [1965] 57 ITR 58 (Guj)., in holding that the assessee might fall within the scope of the expression "any person" under the second proviso, but not as an assessee but as a person other than the assessee, who might be affected by the order of the Tribunal; and that being so, the assessee was not an assessee but a stranger to the proceedings before the Tribunal and consequently the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1922 Act could not be invoked by the revenue in his case. This construction, in my view, is rather very narrow and to the extent that it militates against the construction put by the Supreme Court in the case of Onkarmal Meghraj, its correctness may be open to serious doubt. I would prefer to confine the application of the provisions incorporated therein to the assessment or reassessment of only the assessee or any person intimately connected with the assessee, who has gone up in appeal or revision and in the original assessment proceedings of whom any finding or direction was recorded by the appellate or the revisional tribunal, as the case may be. This being the position in law, as I consider the law to be even after the change in the language of the 1961 Act, I shall now examine as to whether the petitioner-firm was the assessee or in any way intimately connected with the assessee, who went up in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Calcutta, for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, on the basis of which the department had initiated the proceedings under Section 148 of the 1961 Act. Those appeals were filed before the 'Tribunal by an individual, Chand Mult Rajgharia, in whose assessable income the income from the mica dealing business of the petitioner-firm had also been added by the Income-tax Officer which, was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that "the income from the mica dealing business will have to be excluded from the present assessment". None of the members of the petitioner-firm was an assessee in so far as the appeals before the Tribunal were concerned. Nor, for that matter, was the assessee who went up to the Tribunal in those appeals and who was an individual, a member of the petitioner-firm, who is sought to be reassessed in pursuance of the impugned notices. The petitioner-firm, therefore, must be treated as being neither the assessee nor any person intimately connected with the assessee regarding the assessment of Chand Mull Rajgharia, an individual for those assessment years. The partners of the firm must be held to be total strangers to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The second proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1922 Act cannot, therefore, be invoked by the revenue. So far as the assessment year 1954-55 which is the subject-matter of C.WJ.C. No. 642 of 1971 is concerned, the position is not ditferent--rather worse--in so far as there is not even any direction "in the appellate order. It must, therefore, be held that the impugned notices in these four writ applications were wholly without jurisdiction and they, therefore, must be struck down.
Patna High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Murari Lal Ahuja And Sons. on 15 November, 1988

4. There is a thin line that divides what is to be termed as "speculative transaction" as envisaged by Sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and payment made under a settlement which falls outside its ambit. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this matter in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 57, where it was held ; "A transaction cannot be described as a 'speculative transaction' within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where there is a breach of the contract and on a dispute between the parties, damages are awarded as compensation by an arbitration award". It was further observed (at p. 60) : "The award of damages for the breach of a contract is not the same thing as a party to the contract accepting satisfaction of the contract otherwise than in accordance with the original terms thereof."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next