Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.12 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs M/S. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal on 6 September, 1968

15. It is to be noted that there is no second opinion on the facts of the ratio decided by this Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Gopal plastics Ltd., reported in 215 ITR 136 (Mad) that exemption will be available from the inception if the conditions are fully satisfied, which fact is not available to the facts of the present case. We hold that the assessee in this case will be entitled to the benefit of Section 10-B only on complying with the conditions contained prescribed in Section 10-B of the Income Tax Act, and it does not enure to the benefit for the assessment year in question, namely, 2005-06. The decisions relied on by the Tribunal have no relevance to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that the question of law raised by the Revenue is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 84 - J C Shah - Full Document

Textile Machinery Corporation ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 25 January, 1977

This view has been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Corporation vs. CIT (107 ITR 195). In any worst situation, when from the analysis of any provision two view are possible, the one which favours the assessee has to be adopted. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals (239 ITR 775) can be referred to. Hence the claim of the assessee correctly fits in the jacket formula laid down by section 10-B and the assessee is entitled to the impugned deduction. In our considered opinion, the learned Commissioner (A) has committed no error in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee made under section 10-B of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the grounds of this appeal. Hence we dismiss the same."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 279 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1