Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madras Fertilisers Ltd. on 7 December, 1978
6. The original order of assessment is not before us. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the Appellate Commissioner of Income Tax, it was argued that the judgment in Madras Fertilizers case (supra) was not available before the Income Tax Officer at the time of making the- original assessment. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that these two judgments namely the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court were not before the Income Tax Officer.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 8 July, 1997
3. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the Revenue is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin A/kali Chemicals and fertilizers Ltd case (supra), the interest earned by the assessee on deposits in bank is income and, therefore, assessable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
In this context, we may refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh's case (supra):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs United Wire Ropes Ltd. on 14 March, 1978
"According to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. United Ropes Ltd., (1960) 121 ITR 762 (Bom), and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Addl.
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Bombay Wire Ropes Ltd. on 29 November, 1990
In the light of the said decisions, the decision which came to the knowledge of the Income Tax Officer after the assessment is made, is information within the meaning of Section 147(b), The argument of the learned Counsel is that for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80, the Tribunal, while considering the appeal filed by the Revenue, referred to the two judgments namely the judgment of the Bombay High Court in United Wire Ropes Ltd case (supra) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Madras Fertilizers Ltd case (supra); that the Income Tax Officer is bound by the orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal and consequently, its order is binding on them.
1