Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 41 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Topandas Kundanmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 18 March, 1976
17. In view of this decision, it is contended before us that mere receipt of refund would not attract the provisions contained in s. 41(1) of the Act as the proceedings were pending with regard to the refund. This Court in the case of Topandas Kundanmal vs. CIT TC 39R.662 has held that, if an assessee has got an inchoate right and has not acquired any vested right to enhanced or additional compensation over and above what has been offered to him by the Land Acquisition Officer, it cannot be said that he has a vested and complete right as to the interest on such amount. It is only when the amount of compensation is adjudicated upon by the Court and it is only when the Court awards interest on such enhanced amount of compensation that the assessee has an enforceable right to the principal amount of compensation as well as interest. In the instant case, after the apex Court disposed of the matter raising real and substantial questions, it can be said that the adjudication attained finality.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Iron And Steel Industries on 28 January, 1992
In the case of Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (supra), the Full Bench has laid down that ultimate cessation of the liability is on the final decision which culminates the dispute between the Revenue and the assessee. At the intermediary stage even if the amount of refund or part of refund is received in consequence of the Court's order, provisions of s. 41(1) cannot be invoked.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindusthan Housing And Land ... on 9 January, 1973
In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) : TC 39R.624, the apex Court considered almost identical situation.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs O.S. Bajpai, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 17 July, 1975
9. It is contended before us that, so far as the central excise duty refund is concerned, the matter was sub judice when the amount was received and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to tax as contemplated under s. 41(1) of the Act. Mr. Puj, the learned Advocate, invited our attention to a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. O. S. Bajpai, ITO (1976) 105 ITR 864 (All) : TC 19R.336. The assessee in that case was engaged in the manufacture of polymer chips. The excise department was demanding excise duty on the product. The company used to make provision for payment of duty every year since 1964-65. This claim was consistently disallowed by the ITO but was allowed by the AAC as a result of which a total sum of Rs. 2,87,60,109 had been allowed to the company as deduction on account of excise duty for asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1971-72. The company made a provision of Rs. 2,08,29,486 in respect of its liability of excise duty for the previous year in question. The company preferred a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi, challenging the order of the Collector of central excise demanding duty on polymer chips. The learned single Judge hearing the petition allowed the same on 28th August, 1970. On the basis of this judgment, the ITO disallowed the deduction claimed by the company in respect of current liability and also treated the sum of Rs. 2,87,60,109 on account of the past liability as income under s. 41 of the Act and, thus, a total sum of Rs. 4,95,89,595 came to be added by way of income. The High Court pointed out as under :