Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.84 seconds)
I.T.O.Wd-1(4), Kolkata, Kolkata vs Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., ... on 16 November, 2016
cites
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai on 24 November, 2005
10. On a careful perusal of the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), we do not find any
legal infirmity or illegality in his order to interfere. Findings of the learned CIT(Appeals)
are impeccable, and are in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT, (2005) 279 ITR 434.
Section 10 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 October, 1953
" In the present case, the method adopted by the assessee is to value the closing stock at the
market value irrespective of the fact whether the market value of the stock at the relevant
time is more than the cost value of the stock, which necessarily results in imaginary or
notional profits to the assessee which he has not actually received. In fact such a notional
imaginary profit cannot be taxed. It is a well settled principle as held in Sir Kikabhai
Premchand v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SC) the Constitution Bench judgment that the firm
cannot make a profit out of itself. The transaction which is not business transaction and
does not derive immediate pecuniary gain is not subjected to tax. In the present case by
showing the market value of the closing stock the assessee has earned potential profit out of
itself in as much as the stock-in-trade remained with the assessee at the closing of the
accounting year.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Hind Construction Ltd. on 6 September, 1971
The ratio of decision in the case of M/s.
Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. supra is applicable to the facts of this case on all fours,
inasmuch as the facts of both the cases emanate from the same transaction. We, therefore,
while respectfully following the established judicial reasoning referred to above, hold that
the facts of the case do not warrant any interference with the impugned order of the learned
CIT(Appeals) on the aspect of proceedings under section 147 of the Act, and accordingly,
uphold the same. Ground No 1 of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Chainrup Sampatram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 9 October, 1953
Secondly, putting the stock at the market value does not and cannot bring
in any real profit which is necessary for taxing the income under the Act as is held in
Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 (SC) and CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd
[1972 ] 83 ITR 211 (SC). Thirdly, it is a settled principle of income-tax law that it is the real
income, which is taxable under the Act. This proposition was enunciated in CITv. Birla
Gwalior (P.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962
Ltd [1973J 89 ITR 266 (SC), which was pronounced in CIT v. Shoorji
Vallabhdas and CO. [1962J 46 ITR 144 (Se)."