Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Grindlays Bank P.L.C. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1991 cites

State Bank Of Travancore vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 8 January, 1986

"The observations in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT made by Sabyasachi Mukharji J. to the effect that the circulars being executive in character cannot alter the provisions of the Act run counter to the observations of Gajendragadkar C. J. in the case of Navnitlal C. Javeri . The latter being a judgment of five judges and the former of three judges, I am bound to follow the case of Navnitlal C. Javeri ."
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 520 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd. on 24 April, 1980

12. According to Dr. Pal, from the assessment year 1979-80 onwards, the said circular provided that doubtful debts credited to suspense accounts by banking companies will be subject to tax but interest charged in the account where there has been no recovery for three consecutive accounting years will not be subjected to tax in the fourth year and onwards. However, if there is any recovery in the fourth year or later, the actual recovery only will be subjected to tax in the respective years. According to the said circular of 1984, this procedure will apply to the assessment year 1979-80 and onwards. The learned judge himself has taken the view that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in respect of the non-taxability of the interest credited to the interest suspense account are giving certain concessions or are beneficial circulars. Sabyasachi Mukharji J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of CIT v. Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd. , held that "whenever there was any instruction, which is in favour of the assessee, the I. T. authorities or those who were in charge of the execution of the I. T. Act would not be permitted to go back on those instructions or circulars because there was some kind of representation made to the assessee and so the I. T. authorities could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate and they were estopped from disputing the policy enunciated in the instructions or the circulars. But that does not mean that such a provision entitled the I. T. authorities including the CBDT to issue instructions or circulars curtailing the provisions of the Act or curtailing the relief to which the assessee is otherwise entitled under the law".
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 16 - S Mukharji - Full Document

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

13. Dr. Pal contends that the above view of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has been accepted in several decisions of other High Courts. He has also pointed out that in Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT[1990] 183 ITR 1, the Supreme Court examined the question particularly in relation to the observation of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. (as His Lordship then was) in State Bank of Travancore v. C1T and observed that the circular which gives a benefit or which gives a concession is binding upon the Revenue authorities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 344 - Full Document

State Bank Of Travancore vs C.T. George And Anr. on 19 March, 1975

13. Dr. Pal contends that the above view of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has been accepted in several decisions of other High Courts. He has also pointed out that in Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT[1990] 183 ITR 1, the Supreme Court examined the question particularly in relation to the observation of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. (as His Lordship then was) in State Bank of Travancore v. C1T and observed that the circular which gives a benefit or which gives a concession is binding upon the Revenue authorities.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs B.M. Edward, India Sea Foods on 26 February, 1979

14. Dr. Pal also contends on the basis of the Kerala Full Bench decision in CIT v. B. M, Edward, India Sea Foods [1979] 119 ITR 334, that the circular conferring privileges and rights on assessees will remain effective until it is recalled or withdrawn. The circular of 1978 recalling or withdrawing the circular of 1952 was issued in June, 1978. Hence, the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the later circular of 1978 observed that the earlier circular of 1952 will be applicable up to the assessment year 1978-79, because, as held by the Kerala Full Bench, a circular, by retrospective operation, cannot affect the rights to have the assessment made and completed in accordance with the circular as it stood on the first day of the assessment year. Dr. Pal has submitted that special leave was refused by the Supreme Court against the decision of the Kerala Full Bench (see 140 ITR (St.) 1).
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 54 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Union Of India Through Major ... vs Major S.K. Sharma on 29 June, 1987

17. He has drawn our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. S, Subramanian, and in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, , where the Supreme Court held that if there be any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller Benches of the Supreme Court, the proper course for a High Court in such a case is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by the larger Benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches of the Supreme Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law, is followed by the Supreme Court itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 34 - R S Pathak - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Ram Chandra Trivedi on 1 September, 1976

17. He has drawn our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. S, Subramanian, and in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, , where the Supreme Court held that if there be any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller Benches of the Supreme Court, the proper course for a High Court in such a case is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by the larger Benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches of the Supreme Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law, is followed by the Supreme Court itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 257 - J Singh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Allahabad Bank Limited on 14 February, 1969

29. We may also refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Allahabad Bank [1991] 192 ITR 182 which considered an identical question. In that case, in the assessment year 1974-75, in respect of certain loans which had become doubtful of recovery, the assessee charged interest to the party's account and it was credited to the suspense account instead of to the profit and loss account. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was of the opinion that the interest had accrued during the year and that it was income of the year and was liable to be assessed. Hence, the said amount was added back to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim and deleted the entire amount added by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next