Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs V.T. Ramalingam And Others on 22 April, 1992 cites

A.L.A. Firm vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 21 February, 1991

In A. L. A. Firm v. CIT , on appeal from A. L. A. Firm v. CIT , the Supreme Court, while confirming the decision of this court in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622, took the view that the terms of the circular cannot be of any assistance to the assessee in answering the issues and in that view, the Supreme Court refrained from answering the third question posed by the Tribunal. It is thus seen that the Supreme Court had not pronounced about the binding nature of the circular in the decision referred to by learned counsel for the Revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 276 - Full Document

Keshavji Ravji & Co. Etc. Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 1990

In yet another decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1 (SC), it had been pointed out that the Board, by its circulars, cannot pre-empt a judicial interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Tribunal, much less the High Court, is not bound by the circulars and that though such circulars might have departed from the tenor of the statutory provision and give benefit to assessees, that is not the same as saying that such circulars either have a binding effect on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act or that the Tribunal and the High Court are supposed to interpret the law in the light of the circulars. Ultimately, the Supreme Court pointed out that the circular broadly accorded with the view taken by the court on the interpretation of the true scope of the provision which fell for consideration and in that view, the Supreme Court felt it unnecessary to examine whether or not such circulars could be recognised as legitimate aids to statutory construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 344 - Full Document

K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981

In K. P. Varghese v. ITO , with reference to the scope of the circulars issued by the Central Board in regard to the administration or implementation of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court pointed our that the circulars would be binding on the Department in the administration or implementation of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Though this decision had proceeded on the footing that circulars would be binding on the Department in so far as the administration and implementation of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are concerned, it could not be understood as laying down that such a circular would be binding on the Tribunal or the High Court and at best, it could be treated as containing merely administrative direction, not in any manner affecting the judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act on the facts and the circumstances of a particular case. On a due consideration of the several decision referred to by counsel on both sides, we are of the opinion that the reliance placed by the assessee on the circular cannot pre-empt a judicial interpretation of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act with reference to its constituent requisite and, in any event, such circulars, being purely administrative in nature, cannot bind either the Tribunal or this court in the matter of interpretation of the provision of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the common question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs in these references. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000. (one set).
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3460 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Shubhlaxmi Mills Limited vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 28 March, 1989

In Shri Shubhlaxmi Mills Ltd. v. CIT , relied on by learned counsel for the Revenue, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that a condition to be satisfied for securing the benefit of development rebate must be satisfied and, if that had not been so specified, relief by way of development rebate cannot at all be claimed. It had also been pointed out that the circulars issued by the Central Board of direct Taxes do not affect the true position of law. From this decision, it would appear that, if the availability of a benefit is conditional upon the fulfilment of certain requirements and those requirements had not been satisfied, then, the benefit cannot be had by resorting to a circular. Earlier, we had pointed out that the latter part of the requirement of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act had not been fulfilled by the assessees in these references and merely by placing reliance upon a circular that cannot be regarded as having been fulfilled in order to enable the assessees to claim the benefit of exemption.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 48 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1