Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.06 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
The United Commercial Bank ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 23 May, 1957
Similarly, in
the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at page 93 of the report that securities arc accepted by the department as part of the trading assets of that asscssee and proceeded to consider the question posed before them on the admitted fact that the securities are part of its trading assets. However, in the case before-us, the revenue challenges the claim of the assessee that the surplus funds utilised by the assessee for making a fixed deposit with CESC Ltd. cannot be considered as part of its circulating capital and the revenue also highlighted the fact that the terms of the deposit indicate that the assessee cannot withdraw the money as and when it is required.
Sirsa Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 17 November, 1988
(c) Sirsa Industries v. CIT[1983] 15 Taxman 306 (Punj. & Har.)
Kerala Co-Operative Consumers' ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 July, 1987
The other two judgments viz., that of Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. (supra) and of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Co-operative Supply & Commission Shop Ltd. (supra) have also been relied upon by the Ld. DR. These two were the cases where the issue under dispute was the question of exemptability of interest on outstanding balances in respect of supply of goods on credit basis. Both the High Courts, in the above cases, held that the activities of the nature of supply of goods cannot be considered to be banking activities and hence the issues were decided against these assessces.
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
15. As regards the submission of the assessee that the completed assessment cannot be reopened under section 154 of the Act, on the basis of audit objection. ld. counsel has not relied upon, any precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 observed that audit report cannot constitute 'information' for the purpose of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act whereas, there is no such bar for rectification of mistake under section 154 of the Act.
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
8. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the issue as to whether the interest income is liable to be treated as income from banking business or not, is debatable issue and hence, it falls outside the purview of section 154 of the Act and in this regard he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Volkart Bros (supra). Even on merits, ld. counsel submits that the funds invested by the assessee were the free funds and they can be liquidated at any time subject to the only condition of reduction of interest rate and thus, the investment was necessary in the case of banking business so as to meet the requirement of paying to the depositors as and when required.