Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.40 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. on 23 December, 2011 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta vs Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd on 4 February, 1999

But though the right possesses this permanent character, the remedies arising from its violation are withdrawn after a certain lapse of time; interest reipublicae ut si finis litium. The remedies are barred, though the right is not extinguished.‖ And if the law requires that a debtor should get a discharge before he can be compelled to pay, that requirement is not satisfied if he is merely told that requirement is the normal course he is not likely to be exposed to action by the creditor.‖(underlining ours) This was also the view taken by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 260 - Full Document

C.I.T. Madras vs T. V. Sundram Iyengar (P) Ltd on 9 April, 1975

At the cost of repetition it may be added that in CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) the revenue sought to raise the argument based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar (supra), but it was rejected by the Supreme Court holding that the decision was of no relevance to the question involved in the case before them, which was about the applicability of Section 41(1), and because the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 145 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd on 19 March, 2002

At the cost of repetition it may be added that in CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) the revenue sought to raise the argument based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar (supra), but it was rejected by the Supreme Court holding that the decision was of no relevance to the question involved in the case before them, which was about the applicability of Section 41(1), and because the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 82 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai vs M/S, T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd on 11 September, 1996

19. Since strong reliance was placed by the learned standing counsel for the income-tax department on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (supra), it is necessary to refer to the same in some detail. In that case, the ITO found that for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the assessee had transferred amounts of Rs.17,381 and Rs.38,975 respectively to its profit and loss accounts for the respective accounting years. However these amounts were not included in the total income in the returns filed by the assessee. It was explained that the amounts were payable by the assessee-company to its customers but since they were not claimed by them, they were transferred to the profit and loss account. The ITO rejected the explanation. He held that because the surplus in the accounts of the creditors arose on account of trading transactions, it had the character of income and had to be added to the total income for tax purposes. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleted the additions holding that neither section 41(1) nor section 28 applied, as the amounts represented excess trading advances given by the customers to the assessee and that since at the time ITA No.774/2009 Page 22 of 31 they were received they were capital receipts they could not change character and become assessable as revenue receipts. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law was referred to the High Court of Madras:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 285 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next