Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Madhuvana House Building Co-Operative ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 December, 2001

The Central India Electric Supply Co. ... vs Income Tax Officer, Company Circle ??? ... on 28 January, 2011

23. As stated aforesaid, there is no finality emerging in matters of enhancement of compensation as none of the parties can contemplate in advance as to what would be the fate of the appeal proceedings. The facts of the present case show that the Award was interfered with in appeal and again by the Supreme Court. The final picture emerged only when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment. On receipt of the enhancement compensation, the appellant disclosed the same in its return as was the case in P.C. Gulati, Voluntary Liquidator, Panipat Electric Supply Co. Ltd.‟s case (supra); Harish Chandra & Ors.‟s case (supra); Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Limited‟s case (supra); and New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.‟s case (supra). That was the stage when enhanced compensation had to be included in the assessment year in question, which was done by the appellant.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 56 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Assessee on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Assessee on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Assessee on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs Assessee on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Shelters Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Assessee on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concorde Developers, Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 June, 2006

8. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Bench put a specific query before the assessee's representative as to whether the assessee has declared income for any year and it was submitted that for the A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee declared 7.63% and for the A.Y. 2007-08 the ITA No.456 to 459/B/09 etc. Page 8 of 26 assessee declared profit at 9.75% and the same has been accepted. The assessee's representative also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [76 TTJ (Bang) 948], H.M. Constructions vs. JCIT 84 ITD 429 (Bang) and CIT vs. Shankaranarayana Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar) in support of the contention that without rejection of books of account no addition could be made and the system followed by the assessee is an accepted method.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1