Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
6.3 In the present case also, we are of the considered opinion that the
reopening is only a change of opinion and no new tangible material came
to the notice of the Assessing Officer to come to a different conclusion and
thus, the change of opinion is not permissible in law as per the judgement
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 25 February, 2004
Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2) 268 ITR
332, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sil Investments Ltd. on 7 May, 2010
7.7 In the case of CIT v. Sil Investments Ltd. 339 ITR 166, the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court has observed and held as under:
South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 February, 1998
3.1.3 It is a settled principle that when surplus funds are invested in bank, interest
thereon is to be assessed under the head "Income from Other Sources". This view
was held in a host of binding decisions such as South India Shipping Corporation Vs
CIT (Mad) 240 ITR 24, CIT Vs Monarch Tools (P.)
Chhugamal Rajpal vs S. P. Chaliha & Ors on 21 January, 1971
CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL V. S. P. CHALIHA [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC)
followed