Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 33 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, ... on 30 August, 1954
19. Mr. Ray then cites the cases of Commr. of Agrl. I. T. v. Sultan Mi Gharami [1951] 20 ITR 432 (Cal), CIT v. Breach Candy Swimming.
Ismailia Grain Merchants Association ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 23 February, 1955
Bath Trust [1955] 27 ITR 279 (Bom), CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. , Ismailia Grain Merchants Association Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 433 (Bom), Central India Industries Ltd, v. CIT and F. L. Dutt v. CIT , and argues that the proper question which the Tribunal should have framed in this behalf is ; "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the allowance of the loss of Rs. 27,43,807 in computing its business profits ? " He submits that we should, accordingly, reframe question No. 1 in the terms quoted above and allow him to argue on the question of allowability of this loss under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act.
Central India Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 April, 1974
Bath Trust [1955] 27 ITR 279 (Bom), CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. , Ismailia Grain Merchants Association Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 433 (Bom), Central India Industries Ltd, v. CIT and F. L. Dutt v. CIT , and argues that the proper question which the Tribunal should have framed in this behalf is ; "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the allowance of the loss of Rs. 27,43,807 in computing its business profits ? " He submits that we should, accordingly, reframe question No. 1 in the terms quoted above and allow him to argue on the question of allowability of this loss under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act.
Johri Lal (H.U.F.), Agra vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 February, 1973
Bath Trust [1955] 27 ITR 279 (Bom), CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. , Ismailia Grain Merchants Association Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 433 (Bom), Central India Industries Ltd, v. CIT and F. L. Dutt v. CIT , and argues that the proper question which the Tribunal should have framed in this behalf is ; "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the allowance of the loss of Rs. 27,43,807 in computing its business profits ? " He submits that we should, accordingly, reframe question No. 1 in the terms quoted above and allow him to argue on the question of allowability of this loss under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax West ... vs Smt. Anusuya Devi on 28 November, 1967
20. The question of law under Section 32(1)(iii) is a new and an independent question of law. The Tribunal, not having dealt with it, " must be deemed to have decided it against" the company. The company did not apply for a reference on that question'and, therefore, the second part of question No. 1 was " closed by the ' appellate' order of the 'Tribunal" and we cannot, by refraining the question as suggested by Mr. Ray, reopen this closed chapter in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anusuya Devi [1968] 68 ITR 750.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
43. Mr. Pal argues that, as Section 32(1)(iii) is subject to Section 34(1) of the Act, the company's claim cannot be allowed because the company did not furnish the prescribed particulars relating to depreciation on the cylinders. Mr. Ray argues that the prescribed particulars, though not furnished by the company in its return of income, were before the ITO, and, therefore, there was substantial compliance with Section 34(1) of the Act and the claim of the company should be allowed in view of the decisions in the cases of Radkika Mitts Ltd. v. CIT and Ascharajlal Ram Parhash v. CIT .