Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (2.52 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Union Land And Building Society Pvt. ... on 10 February, 1971

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (And Vice ... on 27 April, 1994

It was submitted that the facts in the two decisions cited above and the present case before us turn on their own facts and the peculiar position emerging from the right of occupancy arising from ownership of shares in a company and the principles to be applied in such a case were wholly different from the principles to be applied in the case of agreement to sell classical immovable property in the form of land and structure which was considered by our court in CIT v. Union Land and Building Society Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 794 and CIT v. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 499. Shri Dastur strenuously pointed out that in these two earlier decisions the agreement for sale was entered into but conveyance which was necessary to be executed for vesting title in the transferee had not been executed.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Raman Pillai Thankappan Pillai vs Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisitions, ... on 26 May, 1982

Income-tax v. T. R. I., 1981 Ker LT 398 : (AIR 1981 NOC 160) (FB). The question before the Full Bench was whether the Appellate Tribunal under the Agricultural Income-tax Act had power under Section 5 read with Section 29 (2), Lim. Act to condone delay in respect of an application for reference made after the prescribed time. The Full Bench answered it in the negative after a detailed discussion of the authorities.
Kerala High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - V Khalid - Full Document

Vijay M.Parekh, Bhavnagar vs Department Of Income Tax

iv) CIT Bombay City I Vs Union Land and Building Society Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITR 794(Bom) ITA Nos.1994 to 1999/Ahd/2009 and ITA Nos. 2000 to 2005/Ahd/2009 6 Shri Vijay M. Parekh and Shri Nilesh M. Parekh As per ratio laid down by the different judicial authorities in the above quoted decisions is that the choice of method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee lies with the assessee but the assessee would be required to show that he has followed the chosen method regularly. Considering the facts of these cases in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, I have no hesitation in holding that the A. O. has wrongly rejected the cash system of accounting for a single source of income and thereby added the interest on accrual basis though not received or credited. The method of accounting regularly adopted, followed by the appellant and also accepted earlier by the department is to be accepted as the method of accounting and since the appellants regularly have been maintaining their books of account on the basis of cash system, their system without any solid reason cannot be disturbed or rejected. As it has been clarified by the learned A. R. that in both the appellant's cases, on account of Rs.4,092/- for Assessment Year 2003-04 and Rs.13,270/- for Assessment year 2004-05 respectively has already offered for tax on maturity basis of FDRs which has already been considered and taxed by the AO in the respective years on cash basis only. As such, the A. O. is directed to accept cash system of accounting followed by the appellant regularly and hence, the additions made applying the mercantile system of accounting on the interest accrued on FDRs for all the Assessment Years under appeal are directed to be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nandanam Construction Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 March, 1985

He, therefore, claimed that the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case as followed by the Commissioner should be deemed to have been impliedly overruled along with the view of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganga Properties Ltd. (supra) and the similar view of the Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT v. Union Land & Building Society (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Devanga Educational Association on 24 February, 1984

CIT v. Aditanar Educational Institution [1979] 118 ITR 235 and in CIT v. Paramakalyani Education Society [1984] 16 Taxman 235 (Mad.), It is not disputed by the revenue that the only object of the assessee-trust was education and, therefore, the income of the assessee is income arising to an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes within the meaning of Section 10(22). But it was argued that this was a new plea and could not be entertained. We must overrule this objection because income which is admittedly exempt cannot be allowed to be taxed only on the ground that the assessee was not conscious of the exemption and had not claimed it in the return. It was then argued that the facts are to be investigated in each year to find out whether the institution existed for educational purposes and the income was incidental to the purpose of education. la these cases there can be no doubt about the first point when, admittedly, the only object of the trust was education and the institution existed in all the assessment years only for educational purposes. Even with regard to the income, it can be seen from the statement of expenditure and income that there was a sort of deficit financing in the sense that the primary school fees were insufficient to meet the total expenditure which was met only with the aid of interest from the loans. It is clear on the facts of the case that the income from interest from the loans was feeding the educational purposes and was clearly the income of the institution maintained for educational purposes. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should succeed even on the basis of this alternate ground that the entire income is exempt under Section 10(22) even if by any other view of the matter, the assessee were to be denied exemption in respect of interest income on the ground that the conditions contained in Section 13(2)(a) had not been satisfied. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the orders of the AAC. The appeals are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next