Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tirath Ram Ahuja P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 August, 1990
It is significant to mention that this judgment of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court, which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1990) 186 ITR
428 (SC), was rendered in the context of a Contractor and not a
Builder/Developer.
P. M. Mohammad Meerakhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ernakulam on 12 February, 1969
The
Hon'ble Apex Court in P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 73
ITR 735 (SC) has held that : `Under the IT Act for the purpose of
assessment each year is a self- contained unit and in the case of a
trading adventure the profits have to be computed in the manner
provided by the statute.'
Union Of India And Anr vs Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr on 7 October, 2003
11.2. The doctrine of stare decisis means `to stand by the decided
cases' or `to uphold precedents'. It states that when a point of law has
30
ITA Nos.234&4316/Del/2010
been decided, it takes the form of a precedent which is to be followed
subsequently and should not normally be departed from. A decision
which is followed for a long time will generally be followed, even
though the court before whom the matter arises afterwards might be of
different view. This rule has been quoted with approval by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263
ITR 706 (SC).
Section 3 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 October, 1953
6.2. The above legal position has been recognized uniformly by all the
Hon'ble Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Kikabhai Prem
Chand VS. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC) has held that : `For income-tax
purposes, each year is a self-contained accounting period and one can
12
ITA Nos.234&4316/Del/2010
only take into consideration income, profits and gains made in that year
and not potential profits which may be made in another year.'
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 8 July, 1997
issued by the
Institute, have, of course, relevance in the manner of maintenance of
accounts, but, cannot override the mandate of the provisions of the Act.
9.2. It is a well settled legal position that the taxing principles do not
necessarily go hand in hand with the accounting principle. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.
Chemicals vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) has laid down in so many
words that the taxing principles cannot walk on the footsteps of the
accounting principles. Following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the afore noted case merit consideration : `It is true that this
court has very often referred to accounting practice for ascertainment of
profit made by a company or value of the assets of a company. But when
the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not or whether
certain deductions from that receipt are permissible in law or not, the
question has to be decided according to the principles of law and not in
accordance with accountancy practice. Accounting practice cannot
override section 56 or any other provision of the Act. As was pointed out
24
ITA Nos.234&4316/Del/2010
by Lord Russell in the case of B. S. C. Footwear Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR
857, 860 (CA), the income-tax law does not march step by step in the
footprints of the accountancy profession.'