Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dalhousie Investment Trust Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 22 November, 1967
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 899 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 486 (SC), Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316 (Bom), CIT vs. V. A. Trivedi (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) and Port Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom) and few others. He accordingly contended that there was no error and because there was no error no prejudice that was caused to the Revenue. He submitted that merely because by not allowing the deductions that are permissible under s. 48 of the Act the Department would be benefited by recovery of tax, could not be the ground for holding that there was prejudice caused to the Revenue. He submitted that a deduction that is permissible under the Act is allowable to the assessee on satisfaction of the conditions and, therefore, this could not be the basis for holding that the transaction is one of business.
Ashok Kumar Jalan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 March, 1990
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 899 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 486 (SC), Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316 (Bom), CIT vs. V. A. Trivedi (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) and Port Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom) and few others. He accordingly contended that there was no error and because there was no error no prejudice that was caused to the Revenue. He submitted that merely because by not allowing the deductions that are permissible under s. 48 of the Act the Department would be benefited by recovery of tax, could not be the ground for holding that there was prejudice caused to the Revenue. He submitted that a deduction that is permissible under the Act is allowable to the assessee on satisfaction of the conditions and, therefore, this could not be the basis for holding that the transaction is one of business.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs V.A. Trivedi on 28 January, 1987
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 899 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 486 (SC), Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316 (Bom), CIT vs. V. A. Trivedi (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) and Port Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom) and few others. He accordingly contended that there was no error and because there was no error no prejudice that was caused to the Revenue. He submitted that merely because by not allowing the deductions that are permissible under s. 48 of the Act the Department would be benefited by recovery of tax, could not be the ground for holding that there was prejudice caused to the Revenue. He submitted that a deduction that is permissible under the Act is allowable to the assessee on satisfaction of the conditions and, therefore, this could not be the basis for holding that the transaction is one of business.
The Trustees Of The Charity ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 5 May, 1959
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 899 (SC), Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 486 (SC), Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316 (Bom), CIT vs. V. A. Trivedi (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) and Port Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom) and few others. He accordingly contended that there was no error and because there was no error no prejudice that was caused to the Revenue. He submitted that merely because by not allowing the deductions that are permissible under s. 48 of the Act the Department would be benefited by recovery of tax, could not be the ground for holding that there was prejudice caused to the Revenue. He submitted that a deduction that is permissible under the Act is allowable to the assessee on satisfaction of the conditions and, therefore, this could not be the basis for holding that the transaction is one of business.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.K. Gabrial Babu And Anr. on 5 December, 1990
5. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported strongly the order of the CIT. He submitted that had only the AO been vigilant knowing that the lady is the wife of one of the leading industrialists and, therefore, had every opportunity of knowing inside information, the transaction should have been examined in that light. He submitted that it was a well-planned affair to make huge profits and give it the colour of capital transaction. He submitted that all transactions of purchase and sale were effected by the assessee only after she was married to the industrialist and this is an important feature. He submitted that the word "records" means all the available records under the Act. He referred to certain decisions, including CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.M. Khambhatwala on 2 December, 1991
He submitted that even where two opinions are possible, revision is permissible has been so held by the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj). On facts, he submitted that it must be kept in mind that the amount was borrowed initially for the purchase of the shares and again for the repurchase of larger quantity of shares there were borrowals and in settlement of the borrowings only the shares were sold, which all go to show that the intention was to make profit only.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd on 25 July, 1975
He relied on CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Bhagirath Prasad Bilgaiya vs. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 916 (MP), Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 186 (SC), G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC), Tribhuvandas Vallabhdas vs. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 518 (Bom), Hemchand Hirachand Shah vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 55 (Guj), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 729 (Ori), Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT vs. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra (1987)167 ITR 507 (Guj). The further plea raised was that there was no compelling reason for purchase of 7,00,000 shares.
Bhagirath Prasad Bilgaiya vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 April, 1980
He relied on CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Bhagirath Prasad Bilgaiya vs. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 916 (MP), Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 186 (SC), G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC), Tribhuvandas Vallabhdas vs. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 518 (Bom), Hemchand Hirachand Shah vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 55 (Guj), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 729 (Ori), Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT vs. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra (1987)167 ITR 507 (Guj). The further plea raised was that there was no compelling reason for purchase of 7,00,000 shares.