Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.43 seconds)Gillanders Arbuthnot And Co., Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 May, 1964
15. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT 53 ITR 283, and also on the following decisions in support of the contention that compensation received for stopping the business activities was a revenue receipt.:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi ... vs J. Dalmia on 21 May, 1984
Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia (J.) 149 ITR 215. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had transferred the right to sue to P.L. Lamba Group of Delhi.
Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 10 March, 1999
In the case of Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT , the relevant facts are as under:
Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Baroda Cement And Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 December, 1985
26. Therefore, the violation of agreement was in regard to three trade marks specifically allotted to the assessee for use by virtue of the agreement. The assessee had a remedy against the breach of agreement. The right of the assessee was right to sue for the breach. As held by Gujarat High Court in the case of Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT 158 ITR 636, "the right to sue is not actionable claim and, therefore, cannot be transferred".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H. Miller'S Co. Ltd. on 1 July, 1998
It was further contended that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. H. Miller's Co. Ltd. 246 ITR 316 relied upon by the Departmental Representative is distinguishable on facts. It was further contended that Section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in this case. Referring to the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A, it was contended that a ledger account of BBLIL had been filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and nothing turns upon the same for deciding the issue. It was accordingly pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lakshminarayana Mining Co. on 9 December, 1985
i) CIT v. Lakshminarayana Mining Co. 165 ITR 326 (Karnataka)
Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 6 September, 2002
In support, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 257 ITR 343. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had called for the Remand repeat from the Assessing Officer and had also obtained comments from the assessee. The Assessing Officer had objected to the admission of additional evidence but according to the learned: Departmental Representative the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has neither referred to the remand report nor to the rejoinder furnished by the assessee. The objection of the Revenue for admission of additional evidence in the Remand Report has also not been dealt with by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was according pleaded that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur vs Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji And Others on 7 October, 1958
In the case of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji , their Lordships held: