Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.40 seconds)Section 24 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
B. R. Ltd vs V. P. Gupta, C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1978
Coming to the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of Khandelwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. V Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) the Bombay High Court has simply affirmed the order of the Tribunal without considering the decision of the Apex Court and without giving any reason. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such decisions.
Tara Devi Behl vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 December, 1995
In the case of Tara Devi Behl v Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the partnership firm was carrying on business and suffered loss, has been closed. The partner of the said firm has become a partner in the other firm. The loss suffered by the partnership firm has claimed the set off of the loss of the partnership firm against the share income from the other partnership firm. The same has been disallowed and has been confirmed by the High Court. This case is distinguishable on the facts and is not applicable.
Karnataka Light Metal Industries (P) ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 11 December, 1996
In the case of Karnataka Light Metal Industries (P) Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the assessee company was engaged in the job work of flattening of wires supplied by M/s Karnataka Steel & Wire Products (herein referred to as ?KSWP?). The KSWP was closed in the year 1975. Thereafter the assessee could not get any job work. The loss has been suffered in the business of job work and flattening of wires. The same has been carried forward to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee claimed set off of such loss suffered in the earlier years with the income earned by purchase and sale of M/s Wires and Sodalime. The loss has been disallowed on the ground that that the loss relates to the business of flattening of wires, which had been discontinued and the present business carried on with business carried out by it earlier. The first appeal and the second appeal has been rejected. The matter went to High Court. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held as follows:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966
But the decision of this Court in Prithvi Insurance Co., (Supra) shows that no decisive inference can be drawn from the fact that after the closure of one business, another may or may not conveniently be carried on, The CIT also overlooked that in the revision applications filed by the appellant, it was expressly stated that it was true that "there was a common control and common management of the same Board of Directors" of the business of import and export. Thus, the unity of control and the other circumstances adverted to above show that there was dovetailing or interlacing between the business of import and the business of export carried on by the assessee and that they constitute the same business.?
Section 24 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar, ... vs Amar Singh Gowamal & Sons, Jharia, ... on 17 July, 1986
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Amar Singhji Mills Ltd (supra), the Gujrat High Court examined the provision of section 72 (1)(i) of the Act. In the said case the assessee showed its entire textile unit and subsequently started unit of purchasing grey cloth, getting it processed and then selling the same in the market. The assessee claimed the set off of the loss suffered in the textile unit against the business income from purchasing grey cloth, getting it processed and then selling the same in the market. The said loss has been disallowed by the assessing authority. However, the Tribunal has allowed the said loss. In the reference filed at the instance of the revenue, the Division Bench of the Gujrat High Court has held as under: