Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai vs M/S, T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd on 11 September, 1996
Regarding the judgment of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar And Sons Ltd. (supra), it was submitted that this decision is
not applicable in the present case because the facts are different.
The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd on 19 March, 2002
In the facts of
the present case admittedly the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT
vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied because
the sums in question are not appropriated or written off to the P&L a/c and,
therefore, in my view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs.
ITA No.365/Ahd/2009 A.Y.2002-03
M/s Millat Fibres v. ACIT, Cir-6 SRT Page 7
Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) clearly takes the assessee away from being taxed on
such amounts which have still shown as trading liabilities in the books of account of
the assessee. There is no material to show the character of these receipts has
changed merely by passage of time."
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta vs Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd on 4 February, 1999
By respectfully following the
judgment of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.
(supra), we hold that the provisions of Section 41(1) are not applicable in the present case.
This ground of assessee's appeal is allowed.
Section 41 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1)(2) vs Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd., ... on 14 June, 2007
In the case of Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd. (supra) on which reliance has
been placed by Ld. DR of the Revenue, 3rd Member had agreed with the view of
Judicial Member and has decided the matter in favour of assessee. The relevant
portion of this 3rd Member decision is in para-10 which is reproduced below:-
The Limitation Act, 1963
Saheli Synthetics (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 October, 1995
In the present
case, the matter was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of Assessing Officer for
re-deciding the matter in connection with the addition made by AO u/s 41(1) and
hence, in our considered opinion, as per this judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High
Court rendered in the case of Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd. (supra), in the second round,
this plea cannot be taken by the Revenue that if the addition is not sustainable
u/s.41(1), the same should be sustained u/s.68 of the Act. Apart from this, we have
also observed that in the facts of the present case, the provision of Section 68 are
not attracted because the credits in question are in respect of purchases of the
present year and against these purchases, there is corresponding sale or closing
stock and unless this contention of the assessee is controverted by showing that
these purchases are not having any corresponding sale or closing stock, the addition
u/s.68 cannot be made with regard to these credits in the books of the assessee
particularly when the assessee has duly furnished the confirmation and there is
corresponding sale or closing stock against these purchases. Hence, this contention
of Ld. DR of the Revenue is rejected.
1