Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)
0Somerset Place Cooperative Housing ... vs Income Tax Officer, 16 (2) (1) on 13 February, 2015 cites

M/S. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1992

10. As regards the decision in the case of "Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat", the challenge before the Court was to an order dated 29.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax who had dismissed the petitioner's Revision Application filed under Section 33A and Section 264(1) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The issue pertaied to the Assessment Year 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, for which period the petitioner had incurred certain expenditure, however no deduction was claimed in respect of the same, relying upon the decision of this Court and other High Courts in respect of deductibility of such expenses. The Income Tax Officer had also not allowed this deduction during the course of respective assessment. The assessments were finalised subsequently in the year 1966.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 22 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

12. A reliance on behalf of the applicant on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2015 23:46:52 ::: pvr 12/12 nma1004-14.doc Ors." (supra) and the decision in the case of "N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy" (supra) is also inappropriate in the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sothia Mining And Manufacturing ... on 13 March, 1989

9. The decision in the "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd." (supra), the same arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal. This decision does not refer to the period of delay except for the fact that the delay was condoned in view of the decision of the Supreme Court which was available when the order was passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal had merely agreed with the discretion exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay. The High Court did not interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - S C Sen - Full Document

Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992

Ltd. Vs. CIT , (1991) 224 ITR 677". The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court by a petition under Section 256(2) of the Act which was filed with a delay of about 25 days. The case of the petitioner interalia was that there was a change in law as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court while holding that in considering a delay condonation application facts and circumstances of the each case are required to be considered, held that the facts of the case warranted condonation of delay of 25 days. The High Court has made the following observations:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 2319 - Full Document

India Cements Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1965

The Supreme Court had reversed the view taken by this Court and other High Courts in India and same was reported in the case "India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax" and held that such expenditure must be treated as revenue expenditure and therefore, deduction thereof should be given from the gross income earned by the concerned assessee. The petitioner having received the knowledge of the decision of the Supreme Court, moved the Commissioner of Income Tax by a revision application on 26.4.1966. The Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner recording as to why the application be not treated as time barred. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice stating that the view taken by the Bombay and other High Courts as regards the allowance of ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2015 23:46:52 ::: pvr 9/12 nma1004-14.doc expenditure was upset by the Supreme Court in the case of "India Cements Ltd."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 495 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next