Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sakarlal Balabhai on 15 January, 1968
5. The assessee appealed to the AAC. The quantum as computed by the ITO was not disputed but the application of Section 44F was challenged. The stand of the assessee was that there was no avoidance of tax and, secondly, in any event, there was no deliberate intention to avoid tax. It was contended that the sales of the shares in dispute formed only a small part of the transactions in shares amounting to Rs. 45.64 lakhs. It was also contended that if at all there was any avoidance of tax, it was exceptional and not systematic and in any event there was no such avoidance in any of the three preceeding years. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Sakarlal Balabbai [1968] 69 ITR186.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs A. Raman & Company on 18 July, 1967
In this case the quotation was made by their Lordships from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 at page 17. It was observed by the Supreme Court as under :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Calcutta Discount Co., Ltd on 10 April, 1973
19. Exactly such view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta, Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8. At page 13 of the report, their Lordships observed as follows:
Section 44E in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Vadilal Lallubhai Etc. Etc on 29 August, 1972
15. This decision of the Gujarat High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vadilal Lattubhai reported in [1972] 86 ITR 2.
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
1