Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.56 seconds)Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tea Estate India (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1976
In ICI (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 710, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.'s case [1957] 31 ITR 28 (SC).
C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull on 12 September, 1972
In CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), the assessee-firm had opened an overdraft account with a limit of Rs. 10 lakhs against collateral security of two fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 5 lakhs each, one of which was in the name of A, son of one partner of the firm and the other in the name of B, son of another partner. The Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs given to the firm was concealed income. In reference, the High Court came to the conclusion that the material Was not sufficient for the Tribunal to hold that the sum belonged to the firm.
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bihar And ... vs S. P. Jain on 19 September, 1972
In the same volume, there is another decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. S.P. Jain [1973] 87 ITR 370. In that case, purchase of certain shares was held by the income-tax authorities to be benami and the amount paid for such purchase was held to be from undisclosed sources of the assessee. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the transaction was not benami. The said finding, however, was recorded without taking into account the relevant material and by relying on inadmissible evidence and basing its conclusions on conjectures and surmises. It was held that since the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the relevant material on record and in arriving at a finding it had acted on inadmissible evidence and based its conclusions on conjectures and surmises, it was open to the High Court to ignore the findings of the Tribunal and to re-examine the issues arising out of the decision on the basis of the material on record.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Biju Patnaik on 9 May, 1986
In CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674, the Supreme Court once again considered leading cases on the point and held that non-consideration of material facts would give jurisdiction to the High Court and the
High Court can deal with the question sought to be agitated before the Tribunal.
Salem Cooperative Central Bank Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 6 April, 1993
In Salem Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 697 (SC), the Tribunal proceeded upon an assumption which was erroneous in law. In reference, the High Court held, after examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, that the order passed by the Tribunal could not be said to be in accordance with law. Disposing of the reference, the High Court observed (page 701) :
Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980
In Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, the Supreme Court, dealing with the question, observed that a question whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital or revenue nature has always presented a difficult problem and continuously baffled the courts because it had not been possible, despite occasional judicial valour, to formulate a test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure which would provide an infallible answer in all situations. There have
been numerous decisions where this question has been debated but it is not possible to reconcile the reasons given in all of them, since each decision has turned upon some particular aspect which has been regarded as crucial and no general principle can be deduced from any decision and applied blindly to a different kind of case where the constellation of facts may be dissimilar and other factors may be present which may give a different hue to the case.
K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 November, 1961
62. Quoting the observations of Hidayatullah J. (as he then was) in K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom's case [1962] 44 ITR 689 (SC), this court stated that none of the tests distinguishing capital and revenue expenditure can be said to be exhaustive or of universal application and each case would depend on its own facts and close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant factor may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one must avoid the temptation to match the colour of one case with another (page 261 of 159 ITR) :