Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
This would amount to pointing out the law and the interpretation of the provisions contained in s. 35, which is clearly barred by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (supra), for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act by the ITO is bad in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, cited supra, appears to be in order. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.
Section 35 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
R.K. Malhotra, Ito, Group Circle Ii(1), ... vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai (Huf) on 11 August, 1977
Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment, following the decision of the Supreme Court in R. K. Malhotra, ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai . On the merits, while deleting the disallowance under s. 40(c), the CIT (A) upheld the other additions.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Belpahar Refractories Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 July, 1994
In order to support this contention, learned standing counsel relied upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in Belpahar Refractories Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 144 (Ori) : TC 15R.409, wherein it was held that the words "incurred in any previous year" in cl. (ia) of s. 35(2) categorically laid down that the entire capital expenditure incurred in any previous year can be deducted for that previous year only. If the legislature had intended that the capital expenditure on a capital asset could be carried forward to a subsequent year when the capital asset was finally brought into existence, there was no necessity for the use of the expressions "in any previous year" and "for that previous year". This decision was rendered while considering the provisions of s. 35(2)(ia) of the Act. According to the Orissa High Court, the entire capital expenditure incurred in any previous year can be deducted for that previous year only and it cannot be carried forward. On the basis of this decision, learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that in the original assessment in the present case, the ITO was not correct in allowing the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee, which related to not only the assessment year under consideration and also it related to the previous assessment years. According to learned standing counsel, the audit party merely drew the attention of the ITO to the provisions contained in s. 35(1)(iv) and there is no interpretation of law as suggested by the Tribunal.
1