Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 342 (3.54 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd on 30 April, 1970

Kashiram Saraf, Saraf Motor Company, ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam, ... on 23 June, 1976

We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decision. Thus, even if we consider the question referred to us bereft of the clause "taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kuly Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518", it must be answered in the affirmative. No other point was urged by Mr. Sen.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kashiram Saraf, Saraf Motor Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Etc. on 23 June, 1976

16. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decision. Thus, even if we consider the question referred to us bereft of the clause "taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518", it must be answered in the affirmative. No other point was urged by Mr. Sen.
Gauhati High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shiv Narain Deopura (Db It Ref. No. 38 Of ... on 6 January, 1995

15. The provisions of s. 22(1), 22(2A) and 22(3) were taken into consideration by the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kullu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. referred to above. The proviso to s. 22(1) is equivalent to s. 139(1) and the provisions of s. 22(2A) are equivalent to s. 139(3) and s. 22(3) is equivalent to s. 139(4). The return which is filed under s. 139(4) was considered sufficient for claiming the determination and carry forward and set off of loss. The return which has been filed under s. 139(4) is to be dealt with by the ITO and therefore before the amendment of s. 80 and s. 139(3) the return filed under s. 139(4) has also to be taken into consideration. In view of this decision of the apex Court, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in directing to give the benefit of carry forward of loss, even when the return was not filed within the time as allowed under s. 139(1). The provisions of s. 80 of the Act cannot be said to have been ignored as during the period of dispute it had not restricted claiming of such determination and carry forward of loss only to the return was filed under s. 139(1).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Peerless General Finance & Investment ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 March, 2003

That being so, in my humble view, the decision of the, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kullu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable for asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87. I, therefore, reiterate that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rests on the provisions of the Act as they existed at the relevant point of time and in view of the amendment of Section 80 of the 1961 Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, w.e.f. 1st April, 1985 the ratio decidendi laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 86 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Nanjappa Textiles And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 December, 1980

In CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518, the Supreme Court had to decide the validity of a return of loss filed by an assessee beyond the time limited under s. 22(2A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The ITO refused to countenance this return on the score that it was filed beyond the time limited under s. 22(2A) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the validity of that return on the score that it was filed before the assessment was completed and the rereturn of loss although filed beyond the time limited under s. 22(2A) must nevertheless be acted upon by the ITO if filed within the time limited under s. 22(3) of the Act. In this case too, the Supreme Court did not actually go to the extent of saying that a belated loss return filed within the time limited under s. 22(3) must be regarded as a return filed under s. 22(2A) although they went very near to laying down that proposition. Grower J., expressing the majority view of the Supreme Court in that case, observed that s. 22(2A) provided that a loss return must be submitted within the time specified by s. 22(1). He further held that that provision must be read with s. 22(3) and he went to the extent of observing that s. 22(3) must be construed as a approves to s. 22(1) and the two sections must be read together. The learned judge further observed that if s. 22(3) is complied with, then s. 22(1) also must be held to have been complied with. The learned judge summed up the position thus : "A return whether it is a return of income, profits or gains or of loss must be considered as having been made within the time specified in s. 22(3). With particular reference to the loss return, the learned judge observed that if compliance is made with s. 22(3), the requirements of s. 22(2A) would stand satisfied. The Supreme Court has not stated in categorical terms that a return filed beyond the time limited under s. 22(2A) must yet be regarded as having been filed under s. 22(2A) having regard to the provisions of s. 22(3) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Longowalia Poultry Farm vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 June, 1998

In support of this proposition, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) and CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). The Tribunal has dwelt upon at length on the various facets of the controversy and adjudicated upon the issue in the light of well-accepted cardinal principles of jurisprudence enunciated by various judicial authorities referred to by the Tribunal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narandas Paramanand Das vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 7 February, 1972

The case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd.2 does not go to the extent that the penalty proceeding cannot be initiated if return is filed before assessment. It only held that the assessee can before the assessment is completed file the return but the said case cannot be said to have laid down that Section 271 proceeding cannot be taken if such return is filed before assessment is completed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next