Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
M/S. Ginni Filaments Ltd. vs Commissioner, Of Income Tax-I, Agra on 31 March, 2011 cites

Bihta Co-Operative Development Cane ... vs The Bank Of Bihar & Ors on 12 October, 1966

20. An Explanation is at time appended to explain the meaning of words contained in the section. It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. Sometime, its purpose and object, is relevant to construe it. An Explanation, normally should be so read as to harmonize with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section and should not be construed so as to widen the ambit of the section. See Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. and another versus Bank of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 389. The relevant observation is reproduced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 132 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Shinde Brothers vs Dy. Commissioner Raichur & Ors on 26 September, 1966

In Shinde Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner, AIR 1967 SC 1512, it has been held that the excise duty imposed on goods, and the taxable event for the levy is manufacture or production of goods. A duty of excise is a tax upon the goods and not upon sales or proceeds of sale of goods in terms of Entry 84, List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, taxable event in respect of excise is manufacture or production.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Moriroku Ut India (P) Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 March, 2008

In Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, JT 2008 (3) SC 506, it has been observed that the excise duty is a levy on taxable event of 'manufacture'. Liability under excise law is event based on manufacture and irrespective of whether the goods are sold or captively consumed. Excise duty is not concerned with sale. In this case a distinction between tax on sale of goods and excise tax on the production of goods has been pointed out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 181 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,U.P., ... vs British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur on 3 February, 1987

28. It is apt at this stage to consider a decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus British paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44. This case has bearing on the issue involved herein. The said decision was rendered by the Apex Court before the insertion of Section 145-A in the Income Tax Act. The issue regarding valuation of closing stock was very much there. The court considered the matter in great depth and while doing so, has taken into account Section 145 (1) of the Act as also its earlier decision and the decision of other courts. It has observed the following:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 72 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Chainrup Sampatram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 9 October, 1953

29. In the later part of the judgment, it has been observed that the object of stock valuation is the correct determination of the profit and loss account resulting from a year's trading activity. It is the true result of the trading activity of that year that must be disclosed by the books. Thereafter, a passage from its earlier judgment in Chainrup Sampatram versus CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481, which reads as followed, has been reproduced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 357 - M P Sastri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd on 18 May, 2007

30. The ratio laid down therein is that all cost including cost of raw material for the goods in process and finished goods should be included for the purposes of valuation of stock in trade. It reiterated that the closing stock should be valued either at the market price of the material or at the cost price of the raw material inclusive of all the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the said cost of the raw material. Therefore, even before the introduction of Section 145-A , it was laid down that the closing stock should be valued either at cost price or market price whichever is lower. The cost price includes all the taxes etc. paid by the assessee to bring the material at his place. The aforesaid decision has been referred in a subsequent decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur versus Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 4 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court has held that an assessee has no right in writing down the value of goods in stock below the cost price by estimating its net revisable value. It has been held that if the fall in the price has the effect of merely reducing the prospective profits, there would be no justification to discard the valuation of cost.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

S. Narayanappa & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 27 September, 1966

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT (2004) 271 ITR 113, wherein certain judgements of the Apex Court has been relied upon, and submtited that the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Assessing Officer in starting proceedings under section 147 is open to challenge in a court of law as held in S.Narayannappa versus CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC): Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons versus First Additional ITO (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC); Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Versus ITO(1970) 77 ITR 268 (SC); Sowdagar Ahmed Khan verus ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC); ITO v.Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO versus Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC); CST v. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) and State of Punjab v.Balbir Singh(1994) 3 SCC 299.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 392 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons vs First Additional Income-Tax ... on 27 October, 1966

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT (2004) 271 ITR 113, wherein certain judgements of the Apex Court has been relied upon, and submtited that the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Assessing Officer in starting proceedings under section 147 is open to challenge in a court of law as held in S.Narayannappa versus CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC): Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons versus First Additional ITO (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC); Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Versus ITO(1970) 77 ITR 268 (SC); Sowdagar Ahmed Khan verus ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC); ITO v.Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO versus Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC); CST v. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) and State of Punjab v.Balbir Singh(1994) 3 SCC 299.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 138 - J C Shah - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Income ... vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur on 16 October, 1974

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT (2004) 271 ITR 113, wherein certain judgements of the Apex Court has been relied upon, and submtited that the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Assessing Officer in starting proceedings under section 147 is open to challenge in a court of law as held in S.Narayannappa versus CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC): Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons versus First Additional ITO (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC); Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Versus ITO(1970) 77 ITR 268 (SC); Sowdagar Ahmed Khan verus ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC); ITO v.Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO versus Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC); CST v. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) and State of Punjab v.Balbir Singh(1994) 3 SCC 299.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 100 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next