Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 18 April, 1986
The Tribunal also, following the earlier decision of a Special
Bench of the Tribunal in Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1986) 18 ITD
114 (SD) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals).
The Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 1 November, 1962
The contention of learned counsel for the
assessee cannot be accepted as it is a well-settled
principle of law, as held by the Supreme Court in
Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala
(1966) 60 ITR 262 that (headnote):
S.P. Jaiswal Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (No. 2) on 10 February, 1994
Construing the Income-tax (Fourth
Amendment) Rules, 1983, the Calcutta High Court
also expressed a similar view in S.P. Jaiswal Estates
Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 307 where it was held
(headnote) :
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay ... vs British Bank Of Middle East on 30 August, 2001
ITR110.95
Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 56 and Ceat Tyres of
India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 121 CRT (Bom) 80,
respectively and that Question No.(iii) is liable to be answered in the
affirmative in favour of the respondent in view of the judgment of this
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. British Bank of Middle East
(2001) 251 ITR 217.
Section 39 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... on 1 September, 1999
In any
event, this point is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR
775.
21.
As we have come to the conclusion that on a true and correct
interpretation of the documents, the assessee is the owner of the
property, it is not necessary to consider the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. O.P. Monga (1986) 162 ITR
224, relied upon by Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Department in support of his submission that a lessee
of a property, not being the owner thereof, is not entitled to
depreciation.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Aorow India Ltd. on 8 July, 1997
It is also agreed that Question No.(vii), which
was referred on the Department's request, is liable to be answered in
the negative in favour of the respondent in view of the judgment of
this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aorow India Ltd. (1998)
229 ITR 325. The Reference in respect of Question Nos.(i), (ii), (iii)
and (vii) is answered accordingly.