Bansidar Podda vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 October, 1933
This judgment follows the principle ]aid down in the earlier Judgment in -- 'Bansidar Podda v. Commr. of Income-tax (B)'.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)Sidhramappa Andannapa Manvi vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 28 August, 1951
3. Now, the test of a bad debt was laid down by us in -- 'Sidhramappa Andannapa v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay', in the judgment it was observed:
Hanutram Bhuramal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 31 January, 1938
2. The main contention urged by Mr. Palkhi-vala on behalf of the assessee is that both in the S. Y. 1995 and in S. Y. 1996 Chimanlal not only debited Jivanlal with interest, but actually paid tax on this interest. It may be mentioned that Chimanlal maintained his accounts on the mercantile system and therefore Chimanlal made entries in respect of interest due from Jivanlal in S. Y. 1995 and S. Y. 1996, and although interest was not actually received, on the accrual basis he paid tax. This contention is put forward on the basis of two decisions of the Patna High Court, viz.,--'Hanutram Bhuramal v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bihar', 6 ITR 290 (A) and--'Bansidar Podda v. Commr. of Income-tax, B & O', AIR 1934 Pat 46 (B).
1