Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Nirmala Overseas , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 April, 2009 cites

Dabur India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 September, 1997

Moreover, the amendment in the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1997, has been deliberated in a number of decision of the Delhi High Court and the Delhi Tribunal and Page 15 of 21 ITA no. 2996/Del/2009 ITA No. 3014/Del/2009 therefore, the exception to the principle of consistency would have to be followed as held in Dabur India Ltd. vs. CIT [2008] 13 ITR (Del); [2008] 219 CTR (Del)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs The Acit on 28 February, 2007

24. The CIT(A) observed that there was an opening balance in respect of the said party as on 01.04.2004 amounting to Rs. 9,15,916.94, and in the month of February 2005, the assessee received further sum of Rs. 30,662.25, taking the aggregate amount of advance to Rs. 9,46,579/-. The CIT(A) has made a reference to the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the case of Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. vs. ACIT [2008] 24 SOT 393 (Delhi), where it was held that the genuineness of the advances can only be examined in the year, in which they were credited in the accounts of the assessee. The following observation of the Tribunal was taken into consideration by the CIT(A):
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 58 - Cited by 130 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Foss Electronic on 25 February, 2003

It is evident that the assessee is following the Mercantile System of Accounting. It is also undisputed that for the purposes of accounting of the Duty Drawback, it is accounted for on cash basis. Sec. 145(1), which was amended by the Finance Act, 1995,w.e.f. 1.4.1997 provides an option to the assessee to follow either cash or mercantile system of accounting. The hybrid system of accounting as it stood prior to the amendment cannot be followed after 31.03.1997. In the case in hand, it is undoubted that the duty drawback has accrued to the assessee in the assessment year as it is following the mercantile system of accounting and therefore has to be accounted for in the assessment year itself and not on cash basis. This is not permissible, as per law. The assessee has taken the stand that it has consistently been following this practice. Even assuming for a moment that earlier this practice had indeed been accepted by the Department (even though any evidence of earlier years were not submitted), it is not necessary that in subsequent years also the blatant mistake should be allowed to be perpetuated. This mistake should be rectified as early as possible, as held in CIT vs. Foss Electronic 263 Itr 125 (Raj.).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1