Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.41 seconds)The Finance Act, 2018
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income Tax West Bengal ... vs Clive Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta on 2 May, 1978
Our attention was also drawn to a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Clive Insurance Co. , which, as we have noted before, was affirmed by the Supreme Court on the ground that income, irrespective of whether it had suffered taxation at the hands of the assessee, was entitled to relief under Section 49D of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in which the issue with which we are concerned, viz., whether, even if something is deemed to be the income of the assessee or deemed to have been paid on behalf of the assessee could be treated to be the income accruing or arising to the assessee under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 198 of the I.T. Act, 1961, did not fall for consideration. Therefore, in that context, the said observations would not be of any assistance to us in disposing of the present reference.
Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Blundell Spence & Co. Ltd. on 31 August, 1951
Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Blundell Spence & Co. Ltd. [1952] 21 ITR 28, where it was held that Section 16(2) and Section 18(5) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, constituted self-contained provisions with regard to grossing up. Section 49B dealt with altogether a different matter and that was a case where refund was asked for by the assessee. Section 16(2) could apply only to the income-tax paid by the company in India at the rate laid down by the Finance Act and it could not apply to the tax paid by the company outside India. There was no provision in the Act for adding to the dividend of a shareholder, a tax paid by the company outside India. The assessee-company was a non-resident company. We are in respectful agreement with the principle laid down by the learned Chief Justice, Chakravartti, in the decision mentioned before, in view of Section 5(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with Section 198 of the Act.