Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
Shipping Times (India) P.Ltd. , Mumbai vs Assessee on 17 September, 2008 cites

Karsondas Ranchhoddass (Legal Heir Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 19 January, 1971

6. As seen from the facts of the case, the assessee has not discontinued the business at all and there is only a temporary stoppage during the year under consideration. The assessee has offered income from the property and interest 3 ITA 4387/M/2008 Shipping Times (India) P Ltd income, machine hire charges and also short term capital gain. This indicates that the company has continued its activities during the year and part of activity is business in nature like machine hire charges received. Only activity that was not done during the year is printing and processing of its shipping times, but, it cannot be considered as 'business not in existence'. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Karsondas Ranchhoddass vs CIT 83 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that a clear distinction, however, should be kept in mind between the cessation of a business and temporary lull in the business activity. The loss incurred by an assessee on the sale of certain shares cannot be treated as a capital loss merely because, although the assessee was dealer in shares, there was a long period of inactivity attributable not to an intention to discontinue the business but only to a certain temporary stoppage.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Inderchand Hari Ram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And C.P. & ... on 4 March, 1952

Similarly, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Inderchand Hari Ram vs CIT 23 ITR 437 considered similar facts and held that it is not necessary that a business to be in existence should have work all the time. There may be long intervals of inactivity and a concern may still a going concern, though it may, for some time, be quite and dormant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 35 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Mrs. Sarojini Rajah vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 7 February, 1968

3. The assessee objected the same before the CIT (A) and submitted that there is no activity in respect of printing and processing during the year but there are receipts from the activity of Rs 3,99,289/- for AY 2004-05 and also in subsequent years to the extent of Rs 23,25,700/- in AY2006-07 and Rs 29,07,700/- in AY 2007-08. It was the submission that during the year processing business was not done but the business has not been closed. Further, it was also contended that the decision relied upon by the ITO was given in the context of the business that was discontinued and, therefore, they are not applicable to the facts of the case. The assessee relied on Karsondas Ranchhoddass vs CIT 83 ITR 1 (Bom) and Inderchand Hari Ram vs CIT 23 ITR 437 (All) and Mrs Sarojini Rajah vs CIT 71 ITR 504 (Mad).
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 47 - Full Document
1