Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs State Farming Corporation Of Kerala ... on 27 July, 1989 cites

M. K. Brothers (P) Ltd vs C.I.T. Kanpur on 29 August, 1972

That decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in M. K. Brothers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 38. In that case, under a contract between the British India Corporation and the assessee, the Corporation became liable to pay and the assessee became entitled to receive commission at a certain rate every year. The disputed amount was part of the commission earned by the assessee for the previous year relating to the assessment year and it was after it had been earned by the assessee that it became liable to be retained by the Corporation for the adjustment of the debt due to the Corporation from S and Co., the sole selling agent. It was, therefore, a case of application of income after it was earned by the assessee and the amount in question was hence assessable as income of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 21 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962

5. The question, therefore, is whether there was accrual of income in the hands of the assessee. If there was accrual of income it follows that it is liable to be taxed regardless of its destination or disposal or what happens afterwards. The decisions in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC), CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas and Co. [1956] 29 ITR 987 (Bom) and CIT v. Harivallabhadas Kalidas and Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC), lay down that there is no accrual of income if it is surrendered or relinquished by an agreement before it could have accrued. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no receipt by way of penalty but only a reduction in expenditure. They have noted the contracts entered into by the company with the contractors and held that there were no receipts of penalty amounts but only a reduction in expenditure. The Tribunal, agreeing with the first appellate authority, held that in relation to the penalties, the assessee-company had not received any amount and so there is no question of the assessee earning income so that it can be brought to tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 417 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. on 19 February, 1960

5. The question, therefore, is whether there was accrual of income in the hands of the assessee. If there was accrual of income it follows that it is liable to be taxed regardless of its destination or disposal or what happens afterwards. The decisions in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC), CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas and Co. [1956] 29 ITR 987 (Bom) and CIT v. Harivallabhadas Kalidas and Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC), lay down that there is no accrual of income if it is surrendered or relinquished by an agreement before it could have accrued. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no receipt by way of penalty but only a reduction in expenditure. They have noted the contracts entered into by the company with the contractors and held that there were no receipts of penalty amounts but only a reduction in expenditure. The Tribunal, agreeing with the first appellate authority, held that in relation to the penalties, the assessee-company had not received any amount and so there is no question of the assessee earning income so that it can be brought to tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs M/S. Harivallabhdas Kalidas And Co on 19 February, 1960

5. The question, therefore, is whether there was accrual of income in the hands of the assessee. If there was accrual of income it follows that it is liable to be taxed regardless of its destination or disposal or what happens afterwards. The decisions in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC), CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas and Co. [1956] 29 ITR 987 (Bom) and CIT v. Harivallabhadas Kalidas and Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC), lay down that there is no accrual of income if it is surrendered or relinquished by an agreement before it could have accrued. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no receipt by way of penalty but only a reduction in expenditure. They have noted the contracts entered into by the company with the contractors and held that there were no receipts of penalty amounts but only a reduction in expenditure. The Tribunal, agreeing with the first appellate authority, held that in relation to the penalties, the assessee-company had not received any amount and so there is no question of the assessee earning income so that it can be brought to tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - J L Kapur - Full Document
1