Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.38 seconds)Section 144A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Giridharilal Goenka vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 December, 1988
In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Giridharilal Goenka v. CIT [1989] 179 ITR 122 (Cal).
Hasanand Pinjomal vs Commissioner Of Incocme-Tax, Gujarat on 4 July, 1977
In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Hasanand Pinjomal v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 134.
Messrs. Calcutta Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 12 May, 1959
13. Another vital aspect discerned from the orders of the authorities is that although they were treating the various amounts collected as trading receipts and thus assessable to tax, none the less, they were in agreement on the fact that as and when the assessee incurred the expenses for the purpose for which they were collected, deduction would be admissible. In other words, they were inclined to treat the various amounts collected as part of sales or as additional trading receipts by taking the receipts similar to sales tax for which deduction would be admissible on actual payment under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In other words, the authorities were prepared to allow as deduction the amount actually spent for the purpose for which they were collected. But until such time, they would be content to assess them as trading receipts and straightaway as income. Therefore, there is an implied admission or tacit approval on the part of the authorities to treat the amounts collected as meant for specific purposes and in that view, they were liabilities to be discharged to the various State Government authorities. They were not prepared to allow such liability on accrual basis for the simple reason that quantification of such liability was not practicable, but it could be only an estimate. It is for this reason they were not inclined to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1, wherein admittedly the assessee has maintained accounts on mercantile basis and admitted receipts on mercantile basis and also claimed proposed development charges on mercantile basis. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee made a strenuous effort to bring home the fact that the assessee is also maintaining mercantile method of accounting, a fact which could not be discerned from the assessment order itself. A reference was made to the balance-sheet filed in the paper compilation where the amount receivable from the flat holders was shown as an asset in the same way as fixed and movable assets, but we are not inclined to be convinced about the factum of the assessee having maintained mercantile method of accounting for all the transactions of the business. In any case, the assessment orders do not bear out this point in favour of the assessee. It is universally true that the flat builders receive amounts from flat purchasers either in cash or in cheque in various instalments during the course of construction of the flats. It is inconceivable that any builder could account for all the flat purchase price in the first year of construction itself on the basis of the mercantile method of accounting. Similarly, it is impracticable for claiming the expenditure on mercantile method of accounting in the first year of construction itself without completing all the flats. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that the liability should be allowed on accrual basis is not tenable.
M/S. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal on 10 October, 1972
Another proposition canvassed was that the deposits collected by the assessee were like surcharge collected for charity by the Tollygunge Club Ltd.'s case [1977] 107 ITR 776, wherein the Supreme Court held that the amount of surcharge got diverted by an overriding title for the purpose of charity for which it was collected.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) ... vs Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Hathras., ... on 7 November, 1978
It is also noticed that in the later assessment year 1991-92, the amount collected for the assessment year 1991-92 towards formation of the society and M. S. E. B. was Rs. 91,000 against which the expenditure incurred was Rs. 2,65,353 which shows the expenditure was greater than the amount collected. Therefore, it could be inferred that notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had not immediately spent various deposits collected and used the funds for its business, none the less, the factum of the assessee having ultimately incurred the expenses for the purpose for which they were meant would not be denied or disputed. It is also quite reasonable to anticipate that the amounts would be required to be paid towards completion of flats and not before the construction of the flats, because the facility would be made available subject to inspection and satisfaction of the authorities. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with learned counsel for the assessee that the ratio of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Tollygunge CM) Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 776 and CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 60 would be applicable even though deposits were collected in the normal course of business, but the real nature of the deposits was nothing but liability and the assessee as a promoter has acted for and on behalf of the various flat owners so that he could complete the construction work and service connections and form the society to whom the balance of the various amounts collected would be handed over. In this view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in holding otherwise and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer for these years. These amounts were nothing but liability and the amounts were incurred towards specific purposes during the course or completion of the contract work and the balance was handed over to the society in which all the flat owners are members as required by the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. Accordingly, the additions made on account of these deposits for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 are hereby deleted.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sawaran Singh Balbir Singh on 23 August, 1980
Then he relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sawaran Singh Balbir Singh [1982] 136 ITR 595 where the payment in cash on the basis of oral agreement between the assessee and the payee was held allowable.