Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.02 seconds)Steel Containers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 November, 1974
He supported above argument by referring to the decision in the case of Steel Containers Ltd. v. CIT .
Gynendra Bansal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 21 April, 2003
The learned Departmental Representative also referred to and relied upon decision of Tribunal in the case of Gynendra Bansal v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Del) 240 : (2003) 86 ITD 421 (Del). It was accordingly contended that order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and receipt in question be held to be liable to tax.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi on 6 May, 1998
After the hearing was completed, the learned Departmental Representative brought to the notice of the Bench the decision of Delhi High of CIT v. Hindustan Times Ltd. to contend that on identical facts, a similar receipt was held to be revenue receipt liable to tax. Above decision was duly brought to the notice of the assessee.
Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 September, 1995
Because, it should be noticeable that Section 10(3) of the Act is not applicable where the Revenue seeks any receipt giving rise to capital gain. This Section itself prohibits treatment of any receipt as a revenue receipt once it is sought to be taxed as capital gain. Having failed to establish that the receipt gave rise to any taxable capital gain; the Departmental Representative could not be allowed to put up a new case on behalf of the AO that if the receipt is not taxable under the head "Capital gain", it should be taxed as revenue receipt under Section 10(3) of the Act. Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision of Cadell Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 15 September, 1995
8. The Revenue is aggrieved and has brought the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee was in occupation of the premises and was paying rent to the tenant. He was, therefore, a sub-tenant. Thus, consideration received on surrender of subtenancy was liable to be taxed as "capital gains" in terms of Section 45 r/w Section 55(2)(a) of the IT Act. The learned Departmental Representative accordingly supported the order of the AO. He relied upon decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT . The learned Departmental Representative further submitted that if above receipt was held to be not liable to tax as capital gain, then the same is liable to be charged as a casual and non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) of the IT Act.
Section 55 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1