Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 410 (2.52 seconds)
Documents citing Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Two Ors on 1 July, 1985

Punjab State Industrial Development ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 April, 2006

A careful perusal of Section 80M as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. r/w Section 57 would only suggest that while giving benefit under Section 80M, the gross income of dividend cannot be taken into account but an income calculated after making deduction as per the provisions of the Act (s. 57) has to be taken into consideration.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 179 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madras Motor And General Insurance Co. ... on 16 December, 1985

The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that he is neither relying on the retrospective operation of section 80AA nor on the prospective operation of section 80AB in support of his contention and that we shall have to take an independent view now on the scope of section 80K in the light of the decision in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC). We are referring to this prospective operation of section 80 AB only for the purpose of a probable inference that the Government itself did not want to disturb the decisions already rendered and they wanted to have a correct interpretation for the period from April 1, 1981, alone and not with reference to earlier assessment years.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 75 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Venkateswara Transmission Ltd. on 19 October, 1994

The High Court took the view that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India , the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the benefit under section 80M should be granted on the gross dividend income without deducting the proportionate management expenses. The judgment in this case, in our view, does not help the assessee.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Dy. Cit vs Shree Synthetics Ltd. on 7 March, 2002

As far as decisions relied on by the learned Authorised representative are concerned, in these decisions ratio of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) was not noticed so the same is not applicable to the case of the assessee. As far as contention of second alternative that interest should be included in the cost of assets and enhanced loss should be allowed, he pointed out that this is not a correct position. He argued that cost of acquisition has been defined in section 55(2) and it would be actual cost to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 65 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Srinagar Development Authoity , ... vs Assessee on 25 July, 2016

Therefore, the Ld. CIT in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.(supra) is within his power to decide the issue as per insertion of the first proviso by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and also the second proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 whereas the aggregate value of the receipts in the present assessee are Rs. 10 lakhs. Also on the principle of consistency, we concur with the views of the ld. CIT relying upon the decisions of various courts of law that an erroneous view in law could not be allowed to be perpetuated on the ground of consistency. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Ld. counsel for the assessee was put a question by the Bench how the facts in the present case are different from the facts in the case of M/s. Jalandhar Development Authority. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued and replied that the difference in the facts and circumstances of the present case with M/s. Jalandhar Development Authority is not there except that the registration had been granted in the case of M/s. Jalandhar Development Authority whereas in the present case, registration having been granted cannot be cancelled. Since the order of the CIT dated 30.09.2009 in the present case is after amendment to section 2(15) i.e. introduction of the first proviso was well before the Ld. CIT.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Andhra Pradesh State Housing ... vs Assessee on 25 September, 2012

28th Sept., 2005 by the CIT, Patiala, the objects of which are ' identical to the present assessee. If the Act under which the assessee was constituted is analysed, it includes the State of Punjab excluding Patiala. Shri Ajay Vohra contended that it can be said that Patiala authority is part of the State and when registration has been granted to Patiala authority, then no two yardsticks should be adopted. At the outset, we are of the view that we are not agreeable with the contention of the learned Counsel because if the intention of creating Patiala authority was the same then there was no need of its creation as the same objects would have been fulfilled by the bigger unit, i.e., the assessee. At the same time, res judicata is not applicable in income-tax proceedings. We do not want to comment as to why and how the registration was granted to Patiala authority as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an earlier decision, if it is satisfied that such decision is manifestly wrong or precedes upon a mistaken assumption in regard to the existence or continuation of a statutory provision or is contrary to another decision of the Court." However, two views reasonably may be possible. Perpetuation of error is not a heroism. However, we make it clear that this observation of ours should not be treated to bear any effect in the case of Patiala authority. At the same time, the 8 ITA No. 1845/Hyd/12 Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.P.Housing Board, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 3 June, 2015

We do not want to comment as to why and how the registration was granted to Patiala authority as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an earlier decision, if it is satisfied that such decision is manifestly wrong or precedes upon a mistaken assumption in regard to the existence or continuation of a statutory provision or is contrary to another decision of the Court." However, two views reasonably may be possible. Perpetuation of error is not a heroism. However, we make it clear that this observation of ours should not be treated to bear any effect in the case of Patiala authority. At the same time, the order passed by a lower authority is not binding on the Tribunal. However, it may be a good arguable point by the parties.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next