Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Maya Ram Jia Lal on 18 October, 1985 cites

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Shantilal Punjabhai on 1 October, 1964

10. Adverting to Pioneer Trading Co. P. Ltd.'s case [1968] 70 ITR 347 (Cal), which decision was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 57, we find that there was a real dispute between the contracting parties which was settled and, therefore, it was held that it was not a speculative transaction. On the facts of the present case, the aforesaid case does not help the assessee and the Tribunal erred in applying it to decide the matter in favour of the assessee. Similar is the position of the other two cases referred to by the Tribunal. The facts of those cases are also entirely different and it was shown that there was a real dispute between the parties which was settled.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Daulatram Rawatmull vs The C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta on 18 January, 1971

In coming to the conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Pioneer Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 347 and Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 503 and the decision of the Mysore High Court in Bhandari Rajmal Kushalraj v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 401. The conclusion was arrived at after recording the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - A N Grover - Full Document

Bhandari Rajmal Kushalraj vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore on 19 March, 1973

In coming to the conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Pioneer Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 347 and Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 503 and the decision of the Mysore High Court in Bhandari Rajmal Kushalraj v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 401. The conclusion was arrived at after recording the following observations:
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Nirmal Trading Company vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 10 October, 1979

7. Counsel for the Department also placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by R. S. Pathak J. in Nirmal Trading Co. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 54 and Jute Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 56, for the proposition that if the delivery of the goods is not made and it is not shown that there was any dispute between the contracting parties, then it is to be held that the settlement arrived at between the parties would be deemed to be a settlement of a contract which transaction has to be held to be speculative. In the present case, no delivery was made and it is apparent that the contracts between the parties were settled by payment and, therefore, such payments cannot be allowed and have to be disallowed being of speculative nature as they clearly come within the ambit of Section 43(5) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980

7. Counsel for the Department also placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by R. S. Pathak J. in Nirmal Trading Co. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 54 and Jute Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 56, for the proposition that if the delivery of the goods is not made and it is not shown that there was any dispute between the contracting parties, then it is to be held that the settlement arrived at between the parties would be deemed to be a settlement of a contract which transaction has to be held to be speculative. In the present case, no delivery was made and it is apparent that the contracts between the parties were settled by payment and, therefore, such payments cannot be allowed and have to be disallowed being of speculative nature as they clearly come within the ambit of Section 43(5) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Pioneer Trading Company Private Ltd. on 29 June, 1967

10. Adverting to Pioneer Trading Co. P. Ltd.'s case [1968] 70 ITR 347 (Cal), which decision was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 57, we find that there was a real dispute between the contracting parties which was settled and, therefore, it was held that it was not a speculative transaction. On the facts of the present case, the aforesaid case does not help the assessee and the Tribunal erred in applying it to decide the matter in favour of the assessee. Similar is the position of the other two cases referred to by the Tribunal. The facts of those cases are also entirely different and it was shown that there was a real dispute between the parties which was settled.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1