Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd. (Mewar ... on 8 September, 1998
cites
R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona on 17 March, 1969
In case of R. B. Banshilal Abirchand Spinning & Weaving Mills vs. CIT (supra) at 282 the Bombay High Court has observed that :
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
G.M. Omer Khan vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 28 August, 1991
It was further stated that no defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO in books of account. Therefore, there was no justification in rejecting the books result of the assessee. It was further stated that the assessee is a company which started sometime in 1957 or so and no addition on this account was made ever. Reliance was placed on R. B. Banshilal Abirchand Spinning Wvg. Mills vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 260 (SC), Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 126 (SC) and M. D. Umer vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 525 (Pat). After considering the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the material, the CIT(A) deleted the additions in both the years.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. on 30 August, 1979
In case of CIT vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 565 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that since books of accounts had not been rejected, the mere fact that there had been a fall in the g.p. rate would not lead to the inference that the expenditure had been inflated.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Padamchand Ramgopal on 20 April, 1970
In case of CIT vs. Padamchand Ram Gopal (1970) 76 ITR 719 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no addition is justified if the books of accounts are not rejected.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd on 30 April, 1970
In case of CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "under the provisions of s. 22(3) (analogous to s. 139(4) of IT Act, 1961, is a proviso to s. 22(1) (analogous to s. 139(1) and the return filed under s. 22(3) is also a return filed under s. 22(1) and therefore the unabsorbed business losses should be allowed to be carried forward".
Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 August, 1968
It was further stated that no defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO in books of account. Therefore, there was no justification in rejecting the books result of the assessee. It was further stated that the assessee is a company which started sometime in 1957 or so and no addition on this account was made ever. Reliance was placed on R. B. Banshilal Abirchand Spinning Wvg. Mills vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 260 (SC), Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 126 (SC) and M. D. Umer vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 525 (Pat). After considering the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the material, the CIT(A) deleted the additions in both the years.
Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954
It was further stated that no defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO in books of account. Therefore, there was no justification in rejecting the books result of the assessee. It was further stated that the assessee is a company which started sometime in 1957 or so and no addition on this account was made ever. Reliance was placed on R. B. Banshilal Abirchand Spinning Wvg. Mills vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 260 (SC), Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 126 (SC) and M. D. Umer vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 525 (Pat). After considering the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the material, the CIT(A) deleted the additions in both the years.
1