Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chaman Lal & Bros. on 2 March, 1967

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Glad Investments (P.) Ltd. on 9 June, 2006

Their Lordships did not endorse the view of the Kerala High Court in Atnbat Echukutty Menon 's case (supra) and approved the view taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Daksha Raman Lal . on the basis that there is distinction between the mortgage of the property during the life time of the previous owner and the mortgage created by the present owner after he has acquired the property.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 60 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. ... on 10 September, 1973

In Commissioner oj Income-tax v. Chaman Lal Bros., [1970] 77 ITR 383 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that the amount spent by the assessee-firm, which was a registered partnership firm for the defence of one of its partners in a criminal case for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, was not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the fact that the acquittal of the partner was important for the reputation of the assessee-firm did not detract from this position.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Parshva Properties Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 17 December, 1974

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chaman Lal & Bros., , the Delhi High Court had to consider this question in respect of penalty. It was held that the amount spent by the assessee-firm on the defence of its partners in the criminal case for contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, was not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the fact that the acquittal of the partner was important for the reputation of the assessee-firm did not detract from this position. Dealing with the judgment in the case of J.N. Singh & Co. (P.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Punjab Cloth Store vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 December, 1977

(16) Repelling the contentions the Tribunal on examining the provision of section 3 of 1922 Act, held that the said section gave an option to an Income Tax Officer either to assess the firm and association of persons or to assess the partners or members of the Association individually at his discretion, but such an option did not find place in section 4 of the 1961 Act; on the other hand this section empowers the Income Tax Officer to assess "every person". It was further observed that the categorisation of the persons in section 2(31) of the 1961 Act is not overlapping but exclusive and therefore a person cannot fall under two categories at the same time. In that view of the matter it was held that no question of option arises under section 4 of the 1961 Act. The Tribunal further held that since a "person" as defined in section 2(31) includes an individual, a firm and an association of persons besides other categories mentioned therein, section 4, therefore, empowers the Income Tax Officer to make assessment on every person and an assessment on an individual was not bar to an assessment on the firm or an association of persons. In the present case, the Tribunal noticed the partners themselves returned a particular share income which the Income Tax Officer accepted and assessed them at that income. The Tribunal observed that the double taxation has to be avoided but it could be done by resort to an appropriate provision of law and that under section 155(2) the assessment of the partners could be got rectified. This view the Tribunal held was supported by case Chagan Lal Durga Prasad (supra). The Tribunal disposed of the appeals accordingly.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs National Rayon Corporation Ltd. on 24 August, 1984

9. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Dhanuka to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Chaman Lal & Bros. [1970] 77 ITR 383. A partner of the assessee-firm was prosecuted on the allegation that he had contravened the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Delhi High Court held that the amounts spent by the assessee-firm on the defence of its partner were not deductible. The judgment cited showed that only the expenses incurred in defending an employee were admissible and not those incurred in defending the owner. The nature of the charge in the criminal case against the partner of the assessee-firm was a contravention personally committed by him. The object of spending money on his defence was to save him from being sent to the jail.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Deccan Sugar & Abkhari Co. Ltd. on 20 November, 1975

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chaman Lal and Bros., the Delhi High Court has held that the amount spent by a firm for the defence of one of its partners in a criminal case for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, was not deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the fact that the acquittal of the partner was important for the purpose of the business did not detract from this position. The Punjab High Court in J.N. Singh & Co. (P.)
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Jindal Exports Limited on 6 February, 2009

33. The fourth and final submission of Mr Vohra was that the amendments made in sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the said Act were curative and, therefore, had retrospective operation. The amendments had been brought in to remove the unintended anomaly and were clarificatory in nature. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Raman Lal Hathi: 217 CTR 105 and CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 17 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Samtel Colour Limited on 6 February, 2009

33. The fourth and final submission of Mr Vohra was that the amendments made in sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the said Act were curative and, therefore, had retrospective operation. The amendments had been brought in to remove the unintended anomaly and were clarificatory in nature. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Raman Lal Hathi: 217 CTR 105 and CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 80 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next