Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore & Anr on 15 October, 2015
cites
Section 35AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971
30. The definition of ‘plant’ in Section 43(3) of the Act is
inclusive.[7] A similar definition occurring in Section 10(5) of the Income
Tax Act, 1922[8] was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Taj Mahal
Hotel[9] wherein it was held that the word ‘plant’ must be given a wide
meaning. It was held:
D. S. Bist & Sons, Nainital vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi ... on 3 November, 1978
In D. S. Bist & Sons v. CIT[11] it was
held that the Act does not clothe the taxing authorities with any power or
jurisdiction to re-write the terms of the agreement arrived at between the
parties with each other at arm’s length and with no allegation of any
collusion between them. ‘The commercial expediency of the contract is to be
adjudged by the contracting parties as to its terms.’
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bihar & ... on 29 July, 1971
17. On a consideration of the issues placed before the Tribunal,
including the decision of this Court in Dalmia Jain and Company Limited v.
Commissioner of Income Tax[1] it was held that the expenses incurred by the
Assessee were honest and reasonable and were incurred for the purposes of
protecting the business of the firm as a going concern.
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 19 September, 1966
In Dalmia Jain,
this Court relied upon Shree Meenakshi Mills v. CIT[2] and held: