Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 107 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs O.S. Bajpai, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 17 July, 1975

Mohta Electro Steel Limited And Anr. vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 14 January, 1997

11. Section 7(2) of the Rajasthan Act is pari materia with Section 25(3), Section 11(b) of the Rajasthan Act is pari materia with the substantive part of Section 59 of the State Act. Section 11-B(a) of the Rajasthan Act is substantially similar to Section 25(5) of the State Act. Therefore, the law laid down in  J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C.T.O. (supra) deserves to be followed for interpreting the provisions of Sections 25, 47 and 59 of the State Act and in our opinion, there is no reason to accept the submission of Shri Hooda that the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C.T.O. (supra) should not be applied for interpreting the provisions of the State Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Del vs M/S Bharatpur Nutritional Products ... on 15 March, 2012

9. Learned counsel for the respondent assessee, during the course of hearing, had relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India versus J.K. Synthetics Limited, (1993) 199 ITR 14 (SC), which had approved the reasoning and the ratio in J.K. Synthetics Limited versus O.S. Bajpai, (1976) 105 ITR 864 (All). We do not find any merit in the said contention.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - S Khanna - Full Document

D.R. Desai vs Thirteenth Income-Tax Officer on 26 August, 1993

(iv) In the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O. S. Bajpai, ITO [1976] 105 ITR 864 (All) refund of excise duty was not allowed to be treated as profit under Section 41(1) because the High Court decision in the Central excise matter which was in favour of the assessee had not become final and a Letters Patent Appeal had been preferred and was pending and there was a possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court also. In the case before us, in regard to the Central excise duty liability of the assessee, the matter had become final on receipt of the refund by the assessee. Therefore, that decision does not help him.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income -Tax vs M/S Maltax Malsers Ltd on 4 July, 2008

In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of VXL India v. CIT (supra) and J.K. Synthetic Ltd. v. ITO(supra) for the proposition The conditions which the Act imposes, while permitting a change in the "previous year" must be valid, legal and reasonable and the Revenue Authority cannot impose conditions which are contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document

Trustees Godrej Trust vs Fifth Income-Tax Officer on 6 May, 1991

Similarly, in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court was concerned with the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act and therefore, the ratio laid down therein cannot have any application to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case. Coming to the submissions made on behalf of the asscssee, that the reference pending in the Hon'ble High Court is not a commercial litigation and, therefore, the Trustees would be personally liable to make good the amount of refund, in the event, the Hon'ble High Court decide the reference against the assessee if in the meanwhile, the assessee utilises the amount of refund for charitable purposes, we need only note that this possibility docs not change the position in law. Further, we are not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the Trustees would not only be personally liable to make good the amount of refund, but they would also be liable to pay interest thereon. All these eventualities cannot, in our opinion, change the character of the amount of refund as income available for application. We would, therefore, hold that the amount of refund has to be treated as the income available for application.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next