Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.29 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Bestobell (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 September, 1978
15. With respect to the stand of the Revenue that the additional liability on account of exchange fluctuation is in the nature of capital loss by relying on the case of Bestobell (India) Ltd. v. CIT , the Id. Counsel also submitted that the said decision cannot help the case of the revenue in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT .
Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 April, 2003
41. In the matter before us, the question is a pure question of law and does not require investigation of facts. Therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the additional ground raised by the revenue is admitted. The rival contentions with respect to the merit of the dispute are on similar lines as noted by us while disposing of ground no. (iii) in the earlier paras. Following the parity of reasoning enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of Sterling Foods (supra) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the income on account of 'Cash Subsidy on Exports' cannot constitute income derived from the industrial undertaking and is thus not eligible for relief under Section 80-I of the Act.
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hukam Chand Mills Ltd. Indore vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 19 March, 1976
); F.Y. Khambhaty v. CIT ; Hukum Chand Mills Ltd v. CIT and Pathikonda Balasubba Setty v. CIT . In the circumstance, it is submitted that the only question before the Tribunal is the grant of relief under Section 80-I in respect of the interest income and all other issues fall outside the "subject matter" of the appeal. It is contended that the Tribunal cannot, therefore, seek to reverse the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent it is favourable to the assessee. It is further argued that in case the revenue finds that the Assessing Officer wrongly allowed relief on any point, then it has recourse to provisions of Section 148/154/263 to rectify or amend the purported wrong. The CIT(A) being a Departmental Officer also has power to enhance the assessment so as to correct the wrong while the appeal is pending before the CIT(A). Before the Tribunal, the Revenue cannot seek to withdraw the relief allowed by the Assessing Officer by raising such ground either in the original memorandum of appeal or by way of additional ground. Thus, the appeal before the Tribunal cannot be converted into a departmental process to remedy the alleged wrongdoing of the Assessing Officer, to the detriment of the assessee. Before concluding, the Id. Counsel also submitted that enhancement of income has to be understood on the basis of each issue and not with respect to the overall assessed income.