Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.88 seconds)
T.V. Patel Pvt. Ltd vs The Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax, Spl. Range 14 on 4 December, 2023 cites

The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 April, 1997

In Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 10, the Supreme Court held that even though the Assessee Company was following mercantile system of accounting and had made entries in the books regarding enhancement charges, no real income accrued to the Assessee company in respect of those enhanced charges on account of various suits filed and pending on the right of the Assessee company to enhance the charges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 515 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Vimla D. Sonwane And Others on 1 January, 1800

In the case of CIT vs. Vimla D. Sonwane & Ors. 4, the Assessee, co-owner of a plot, gave on lease one plot at Rs.9 lakhs per year to M/s. Poonam Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and other plot to M/s. Punjab Co-operative Housing Society at Rs. 6 lakhs per year. Both the lessees filed proceedings for fixing of standard rent in the Small Causes Court at Bombay. The Assessee there did not follow the mercantile system of accounting but income was offered on receipt basis. The Revenue sought to add the lease money in the total income of the Assessee on accrual basis on the basis of agreed rent. The matter reached this Court and the Court in para 5 observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Pal Properties (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 December, 2001

36. The Respondent Revenue has sought to distinguish the decision of Delhi High Court, in the case of Pal Properties (supra) on the ground that the lease in that case had expired. In our view, that is not the correct reading of the facts of the case. The Respondent cannot pick-up one line from facts of the case and contend that ratio of that case is not applicable. Although the lease had expired, but the Assessee therein terminated the lease agreement for non-payment of rent and the issue before the Court was post termination of the lease and the matter being subjudice before the civil court, the Court held no income accrues post termination. It was on these facts that the Delhi High Court came to a conclusion that till the matter is decided by the Civil Court, there cannot be any accrual of income in favour of the Assessee. The facts of the Appellant Assessee before us are similar to that before the Delhi High Court and same supports the Appellant Assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindusthan Housing And Land ... on 9 January, 1973

In this case, the Assessee's land was acquired by the State Government and the Land Acquisition officer awarded a sum of 10 (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) 11 (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) 21 of 31 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2023 07:30:13 ::: sg itxa699-02.doc Rs.24,97,295/- as the compensation payable to the Assessee. The Assessee was not satisfied with the amount of compensation preferred an appeal before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made an award dated 29th July 1955 fixing the amount of compensation at Rs.30,16,787/- on account of the permanent acquisition of the land. Thus, in addition to the original amount of compensation further compensation was awarded amounting to Rs.5,13,624/- and on which he directed interest at the rate of 5% per annum from January 8, 1953, the date of acquisition upto the date of payment. The State Government filed an appeal against the said award to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the State Government deposited Rs.736691/-, which the Assessee was permitted to withdraw on 9th of May 1956 on furnishing security. On receipt of the amount, the Assessee credited it in its suspense account on the same date. The issue arose when the sum of Rs.736631/- can be said to have accrued during the relevant assessment year 1956-57 for the previous year ending 31 st March 1956. The Supreme Court reiterating the principle laid down in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. observed that there was no absolute right to receive the amount at the time of withdrawing the sum because if the appeal of the State Government was allowed in its entirety, the right to payment of the enhanced compensation would fall altogether.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 268 - A N Sen - Full Document

P. Mariappa Gounder (Dead) By Lrs. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 21 January, 1998

35. The Respondent has sought to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the Appellant on the ground that those are cases where enhanced compensation was in dispute before the Civil Court and either the same was not ascertained or the lease had expired and, therefore, unascertained sum cannot be taxed whereas, in the instant case, the sum is already ascertained and the IDBI is willing to offer the said amount but the Appellant is not accepting the same and, therefore, merely because the Appellant is not accepting the rent offered by the IDBI, it cannot be said that no income accrues. It is on these facts that the decision relied upon by the Appellant, according to the Respondent, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In our view, this is not a correct contention on the part of the Revenue. The ratio of the decisions in the case of Hindustan Housing and Land 27 of 31 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2023 07:30:13 ::: sg itxa699-02.doc Development Trust (supra), P. Mariappa Gounder (supra) and other cases relied upon by the Appellant and further cases quoted by us above is that if the dispute is pending before the Civil Court, no income can be said to have accrued or arise to an Assessee pending adjudication of the said dispute for the purpose of Section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the ratio of these judgments, which requires to be applied to the present case before us.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 24 November, 1967

The Supreme Court held that it was on the final determination of the amount of compensation that the right to such income would arise or accrue and, till then, there was no liability in presenti in respect of the additional amount of compensation claimed by the owner of the land. The Supreme Court made a distinction between cases where the right to receive payment is in dispute and it is not a question of merely quantifying the amount to be received and cases where the right to receive payment is admitted and the quantification of the amount received is left to be payable in amount of settled principles. Since the right to receive itself was in dispute, no income accrued to the Assessee in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 108 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next