Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 160 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... vs Manmohan Das (Deceased) on 5 November, 1965

M/S International Fresh Farm Products ... vs Ito, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh on 7 August, 2023

In the facts and circumstances, thus respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manmohan Das (supra) we hold that the claim for set off of carry forward of losses prior to assessment years 2006-07 against the profits of the current assessment year i.e. A.Y.2012-13 vis-à-vis the provisions of section 79 of the Act has to be examined by the Assessing Officer only in the assessment year in which the assessee claimed such set off of losses in the return of income. In the present case since the assessee has claimed set off of carry forward of losses against the income of the current assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and also in the subsequent assessment years this claim of the assessee has to be examined only during the assessment year 2012-13 and subsequent assessment years. Thus, the grounds raised in this regard are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall decide the implication of section 79 of the Act in the light of our above said findings and observations. The grounds raised are disposed off accordingly."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi on 11 May, 2020

18. Thus, we are also of the opinion that claim regarding the allowability of the bad debts or business loss has to be determined by the Assessing Officer in the year in which the loss has claimed in P&L account and the assessment of the corresponding income as capital gain in an earlier year will not be binding on the assessee and it is always open for the assessee to point out that it is to be assessed under the correct head, that is business income. The fact that declaration and assessment of the corresponding income has been assessed as capital gain and accepted in the earlier year will not have any impact and will not bind the assessee and same has to be determined again in the Assessment Year 2013-14 in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed hereinabove. The AO as well as the Appellate Authorities under the law I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 32 can review the facts of the case and redetermined the taxability of income and the claims to be allowed against the same in the subsequent years and if certain mistake or wrong decisions has been rendered in the earlier years, the same cannot be perpetuated for subsequent year and it will not be a legal impediment even though the assessment for the earlier years has attained finality. Further, another important thing is that the claim of income or loss or any deduction has to be examined afresh in the year in which it is claimed. Thus, the law as culled out from the aforesaid judgment is that the bad debt or loss which is claimed in this year has to be determined in this year only without distributing the earlier assessment which has attained finality, and therefore, we hold that the claim of loss made in this year is allowable as business loss.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri G Radha Charan Reddy,, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 5 August, 2013

According to D.R., in the case of CIT vs. Manmohan Das (supra), the AO, the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal were right in holding that the receipt could not be assessed under the head 'Salary'. For the purpose of ascertaining the character of the receipt, the D.R. pointed out that it is only a contract of employment when the receipt could be brought 7 ITA.No.162,163/Hyd/2013 etc., M/s. Charans Life Devices Pvt. Ltd. Hyd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ivy Health Life Sciences (P) Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 1 October, 2012

CIT Vs. Manmohan Das, (1966) 59 ITR 699, 703 (SC)| The fact that a person may hold an office and that he should receive a remuneration by virtue of that office does not necessarily bring about a relationship of master and servant between him and the person who pays him the remuneration or the relationship of an employer and an employee, it all depends upon the contract under which the individual who receives the remuneration is employed. In employment, there are certain basic concepts:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vr. C. Rm. Adaikkappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 December, 1969

Reliance was also placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manmohan Das, where the assessee who was appointed as a treasurer of a bank with full powers to manage the affairs of the bank was held to carry on business and the remuneration received by him was held not to be salary within the meaning of Section 7 of the Income-tax Act. The facts arising in that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Having regard to the fact that the service agreement between the assessee and the employer treats him as a full-time employee to carry on the business of film distribution in partnership under the employer's direction, he has no independent discretion in carrying out his duties. Having regard to the specific provisions in the agreement, the assessee is not correct in his contention that it was not a salary agreement at all and that the remuneration received was not part of his salary income.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Arvind Singh, Kota vs Assessee on 7 June, 2016

Similarly, in the matter of CIT vs. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC) while commenting on the profession, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provision requires purely intellectual or manual skill. In our opinion, a profession will imply any vocation carried on by an individual or group of individuals requiring the predominantly intellectual skills pursuing that vocation, requiring specialized advance education or expertise. It is an admitted case that the assessee is a professional having B-Tech degree and four years experience in advising, guiding and teaching various subjects relevant for preparation of entrance examination for engineering colleges. The conclusion drawn by AO that the agreement between the assessee and Resonance is a colorable device, in our view, is not correct and not supported by any investigation or reasoning brought on record. In our view, the assessee was given the freedom to take the classes and teach the subject within the parameter laid down by Resonance. The day to day supervision and control is missing. We observe that there is no provision for marking the attendance while coming to the Institute and going out of the institute. No fixed timing has been given.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next