Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.36 seconds)Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991
"15. The question in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of
Income-tax [1992] 1 SCC 659; [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) (also
cited by the State of U. P. was whether the Tribunal was bound
by an earlier decision in respect of an earlier assessment year that
the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang, a religious
institution, was entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court said:
Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 December, 1963
12. We are conscious of the aforesaid dicta laid down in the
Constitution Bench judgment. It is for this reason, we have, at
the beginning of this judgment, stated the circumstances of the
present case from which we arrive at the irresistible conclusion
that in this case, letting of the properties is in fact is the business
of the assessee. The assessee therefore, rightly disclosed the
income under the head "income from business". It cannot be
treated as "income from the house property".
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 March, 2006
Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 157 (Bom), in which this Court
referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. 4 Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2006] 282 ITR 273(SC),
which followed the decision in Radhasoami Satsang Sabha (supra)
accepted the rule of consistency. The following observations of the
Supreme Court are required to be noted:-
East India Housing And Land Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 2 November, 1960
8. With this background, we first refer to the judgment of
this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust
Ltd. Case [East India Housing and Land Development Trust
Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC)] which has been relied
upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company
was incorporated with the object of buying and developing
landed properties and promoting and developing markets.
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd vs Dy.Commr.Of I.T.Mumbai & Anr on 8 May, 2017
The decision
of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (Supra) has been
referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421
Karanpura Development Co., Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 31 August, 1961
10. After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts, which
were there before the Court, it came to the conclusion that
income had to be treated as income from business and not as
income from house property. We are of the opinion that the
aforesaid judgment in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Case
[(1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC)] squarely applies to the facts of the
present case.