Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.36 seconds)
Vatsala Shenoy vs Jt.Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 October, 2016 cites

C.I.T Central-Iii vs M/S Excel Industries Ltd on 8 October, 2013

19) Second submission of the learned senior counsel for the assessees pertained to the payment of tax on the income which the business earned from April 01, 1994 till November 20, 1994. The learned counsel argued that as per the orders of the High Court in the winding up petition, 40% of this income was retained by AOP-3 as a tax component because of the reason that for business income of the earlier years, after the dissolution, the same was taxed as an AOP. Therefore, the individual partners could not be taxed on the said business income in the year in question, as held in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax7 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd.8 His related submission was that in any case this amount was not received by the assessees as it was retained by AOP-3 and, therefore, tax was not payable by the assessees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 498 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Commr.Of I.T.Faridabad vs Ghanshyam (Huf) on 16 July, 2009

27) In the aforesaid scenario, when the Official Liquidator has distributed the amount among the nine partners, including the assessees herein, after deducting the liability of each of the partners, the High Court has rightly held that the amount received by them is the value of net asset of the firm which would attract capital gain. Scope of Section 45 of the Act was explained in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF)9 and we would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment:
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 87 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 3 Next