Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.05 seconds)Commr.Of Income Tax-I,Ahmedabad vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt.Ltd on 18 August, 2008
of the I.T.Rules does not apply retrospectively. For the
aforesaid reason and the judicial pronouncements, cited
supra, we hold that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
relied on by the CIT(A) in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health
Foods (P.)
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
THE FINANCE ACT, 2021
Commr.Of Income Tax-I,New Delhi vs Vatika Township P.Ltd on 15 September, 2014
The Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the judgment in the case
of CIT v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (supra) and held that Rule 8D
13
ITA No.677/Bang/2022
Sri G.R.Chandrashekar Naidu.
Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through ... on 31 January, 2018
The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (supra), held that
judgment in the case of CIT v. Gold Coins Health Foods (P.)
Google India Private Limited, ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 11 May, 2018
Ltd.
v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to
deduction of employees' contribution to ESI, if the payment was
made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s
139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about
by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the
I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee.
Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective
in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned
to be effective from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from
assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of
the Tribunal had categorically held that the amendment
to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Actby Finance Act, 2021 is
only prospective in nature and not retrospective.
Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal, Calcutta on 10 October, 1979
In Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, West Bengal (1979 (120) ITR 921) it was observed,
by this Court that the law to be applied in income tax
assessments is the law in force in the assessment year unless
otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication.
Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to focus on the
definition of the expression 'income' in the statute. Section 2 (24)
defines' income' which is an inclusive definition, and includes
losses i. e. negative profit.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd on 25 February, 1975
11. When the word "income" is read to include losses as
held in Harprasad's case (supra) it becomes crystal clear that
even in a case where on account of addition of concealed
income the returned loss stands reduced and even if the final
assessed income is a loss, still penalty was leviable thereon
even during the period 1.4.1976 to 1.4.2003. Even in the
Circular dated 24.7.1976, referred to above, the position was
clarified by Central Bureau of Direct Taxes (in short' CBDT). It is
stated that in a case where on setting of the concealed income
against any loss incurred by the assessee under any other
head of income or brought forward from earlier years, the total
income is reduced to a figure lower than the concealed income
or even to a minus figure the penalty would be imposable
because in such a case "the tax sought to be evaded" will be
tax chargeable on concealed income as if it is "total income". "
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prithipal Singh And Co. on 20 July, 2000
Reference
to the - order by this Court dismissing the revenue's Civil
Appeal No.7961 of 1996 in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Prithipal Singh and Co. is also not very important because that
was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when
Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence.