Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
M/S. Dasapalla Properties, Suryabagh, ... vs Dcit, Circle I, Visakhapatnam on 16 December, 2014
cites
Section 14 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs New India Industries Ltd. on 24 January, 1995
Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., ; Sultan
Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Bombay City II and Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Lucknow v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., and that of the
Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. New
India Industries Ltd . As regards interest, he submits that
the liability to pay tax thereon would arise only if it is
received.
East India Housing And Land Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 2 November, 1960
The object of the appellant company no doubt
was to acquire land and buildings and to run the same
into account by construction and reconstruction,
decoration, furnishing and maintenance of them and
by leasing and selling the same. The activity
contemplated in the aforesaid object of the company,
assuming it to be a business activity, would not by
itself turn the lease in the present case into a business
deal. That would follow from the decision of this Court
in East Indian Housing and Land Development Trust
Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (1961)42 ITR 49
(SC)), where it was observed that the income derived
by the company from shops and stalls is income
received from property and falls under the specific
head described in Section 9. The character of that
income is not altered because it is received by a
company formed with the object of developing and
setting up markets.
Sultan Brothers (Private) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 2 March, 1959
Section 14-C of the Act does not leave any doubt
whatever as to the classification of the income. It is just, the
income from the house property, irrespective of the nature of
the ownership. The appellant placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sultan Brothers
Private Ltds (2 supra) case. On a perusal of the same, we
find that apart from not helping the appellant, it renders the
very argument untenable. The same is evident from the
following paragraph:
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd on 15 December, 1987
Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., ; Sultan
Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Bombay City II and Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Lucknow v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., and that of the
Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. New
India Industries Ltd . As regards interest, he submits that
the liability to pay tax thereon would arise only if it is
received.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs E.S.Premalatha on 11 November, 2005
Even where a building yields rent, there does exist a
scope to treat it as the one, other than rent. Expenditure for a
building, would, however, stand on a different footing. A small
facet of this very aspect fell for consideration in Premalathas
case (5 supra). The question there was as to whether the
expenditure incurred in relation to construction of a building
must be treated as revenue or capital expenditure. We took
the view that in case the expenditure is incurred by the owner
of the building or land, it becomes capital expenditure and on
the other hand, if it is incurred by a person, who took the
land on lease and constructed building for the purpose of
earning income in the form of lease, it becomes the revenue
expenditure. That contingency, however, does not exist in
this case.
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Messers Ual Industries Limited on 7 April, 2010
The Judgment of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner
of Income Taxs case (4 supra) also is not of much help to the
appellant. Centrain observations made therein cut at the root
of the very argument of the appellant. For example, the
differentiation between the rental income and the business
income was summed up and Clauses (iii) and (viii) of the
general principles evolved by the Court read as under:
1