Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)
Cit vs Leader Engg. Works on 7 May, 2002 cites

M/S. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal on 10 October, 1972

In our opinion, the aforesaid decision cannot be ignored by accepting the spacious argument of Shri Sawhney that the Division Bench had misread the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. (supra) and the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal cannot be treated as vitiated by an error because for the purpose of deleting the addition made by the assessing officer by invoking section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Act, they relied on the decision of Sirsa Industries' case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 319 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 17 August, 1971

Accordingly, following Kedarnath's case (supra) the two decisions of this court and of other High Courts referred to above, it is held that the Income Tax Officer had rightly allowed the deduction in the original assessment framed by him. Once the assessment orders were rightly framed, no case for rectification or for reopening under sections 147/148 and 154/155 of the Act arises and the notices are clearly illegal and without jurisdiction."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 702 - A N Grover - Full Document

Sirsa Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 17 November, 1988

In our opinion, the aforesaid decision cannot be ignored by accepting the spacious argument of Shri Sawhney that the Division Bench had misread the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. (supra) and the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal cannot be treated as vitiated by an error because for the purpose of deleting the addition made by the assessing officer by invoking section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Act, they relied on the decision of Sirsa Industries' case (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax West Bengal vs Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. on 18 June, 1968

In an earlier decision [see CIT v. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. (1969) 71 ITR 131 (Cal)], the Calcutta High Court had declared the provision whereby an auctioneer was made liable to sales tax, as ultra vires, and, therefore, the precise question before the Supreme Court, was whether the decision of the Calcutta High Court declaring the provision to be ultra vires was right or wrong and, it did not agree with the Calcutta High Court and held that it was within the competence of the state legislature to include within the definition of the word "dealer" an auctioneer who carries on the business of selling goods and who has, in the customary course of business, authority to sell goods belonging to the principal and, therefore, concluded that in law he was liable to pay sales-tax and the sales-tax received by him formed part of the trading or business receipts. The point whether the assessee was right in claiming deduction in the year in which liability to pay tax accrued or whether he was entitled to claim deduction in the year in which the amount was actually paid on the basis of its manner of maintaining accounts, did not directly arise. In spite of the point not having directly arisen, the following sentence was added :
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1