Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (3.37 seconds)
Documents citing Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 April, 1992

Uma Polymers (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 February, 2006

5.1 After hearing the parties the learned JM was of the view that claim made in the aforesaid additional ground was purely legal and its disposal did not require further investigation of facts. This position, according to the learned JM, was conceded by the learned Departmental Representative. The learned Member further held that ground was entertainable and admissible under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules. The learned JM further relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd v. CIT and in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT and also on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 105 CTR (Del) 5 : (1992) 198 ITR 1 (Del) in support of his view that additional ground of appeal of the assessee should be admitted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 45 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

The Acit,Cir-1(1),, Trivandrum vs M/S.Us Technology International P. ... on 4 December, 2019

5.5 From the above, it could be made out that the first appellate authority had power to entertain a fresh claim of deduction not been made before the Assessing Officer. According to the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer had not commented adversely on the allowability of deduction u/s 10A claimed by the assessee except pointing out that the deduction can be allowed only if the claim was made in the original return filed but not in the return which was filed subsequent to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) observed that provisions regarding filing of audit report etc. had been declared directory but not mandatory and thereby, audit report etc. could be filed even during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings as well. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of CWP Taylor vs. CIT supra, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. supra is limited to the power of Assessing Officer only and does not affect the powers of the first appellate authority in entertaining the claim not been made before the Assessing officer by filing a valid return.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Girish Bhatia vs Prama Bhandari on 23 February, 2021

11. Learned counsel for respondent has further argued that even though the reason given for dishonour of cheque was debit freeze but the cause of action was not the dishonor of cheque but issue of legal notice and its non compliance within 15 days of service. The revisionist has failed to comply with the legal notice and pay the due amount for which the cheque was issued and therefore even though the reason for dishonour was frozen account, the complaint is maintainable under Section 138 NI Act. For this reference has been made to Rajat Pharmachem Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2134; Mahesh Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Goa 2006 CriLJ 1142 and Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1997 SCC OnLine Del 989.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Shri Mehndipur Balaji on 4 July, 2022

and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar in ITA No. 270 of 2014 decided on 06.09.2016, and the judgments in Assistant Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Devaki Ammal (1995) 2012 ITR 395 SC, Taylor Instrument Co.(India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 99 Taxman 155 (Delhi) = (1998) 232 ITR 771(Delhi) and State of U.P. Vs. Aman Mittal and another 2019 (19) SCC 740 (para 24 and in ITA No.31 of 2016 E.N. Gopakumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 3.10.2016 by Kerala High court (para 8).
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 27 - J Banerji - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Cce [Alongwith Appeal No. E/2691/91 ... on 18 November, 2005

(m) The decision of the Delhi High Court in Taylor Instrument Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax were cited for the proposition that the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 54 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Eicher Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 May, 2002

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its Full Bench decision in the case of Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd v. CIT (supra) was pleased to hold that fresh ground can be raised before the Tribunal under Rules 11 and 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. The Hon'ble Court upheld the validity of these provisions under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that where no fresh evidence is required to be taken, there was no reason why the additional ground should not be entertained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 102 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next