Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Hemachand Hirachand Shah vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 June, 1993
He distinguished the case of Hemachand Hirachand Shan v. CIT (206 ITR 55)(Guj) as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indramani Bai and Anr. v. CIT (200 ITR 594). These cases were held to be given on its own facts and there was no universal formula to be applied in every case. Two other cases relied upon by the Revenue were held to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. With the aforesaid observations, in the proposed order, the learned JM cancelled the order Under Section 263 of the IT Act.
Smt. Indramani Bai And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Addl.) on 18 February, 1993
He distinguished the case of Hemachand Hirachand Shan v. CIT (206 ITR 55)(Guj) as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indramani Bai and Anr. v. CIT (200 ITR 594). These cases were held to be given on its own facts and there was no universal formula to be applied in every case. Two other cases relied upon by the Revenue were held to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. With the aforesaid observations, in the proposed order, the learned JM cancelled the order Under Section 263 of the IT Act.
Gopal C. Sharma vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 October, 1993
The observations of the learned AM at page 13 (para.11) were argued to be based upon surmises, speculation and assumptions. There was nothing on record to show that the version put forward by the assessee was wrong and that there was no intention to set up industry when land was acquired from the HUF. Even otherwise, it has to be kept in mind that the land in question was held for long with the HUF. The learned counsel for assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. v. CIT (22 ITR 502), the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT (209 ITR 947).
Ashok Kumar Jalan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 March, 1990
Two other decisions Ashok Kumar Jalan v. CIT (187 ITR 316) (Bom) and Hemachand Hirachand Shah v. CIT (206 ITR 55)(Guj) were relied upon to support his contention. The learned counsel for assessee, accordingly, submitted that the proposed order of the learned JM be approved.
Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 15 April, 1952
The observations of the learned AM at page 13 (para.11) were argued to be based upon surmises, speculation and assumptions. There was nothing on record to show that the version put forward by the assessee was wrong and that there was no intention to set up industry when land was acquired from the HUF. Even otherwise, it has to be kept in mind that the land in question was held for long with the HUF. The learned counsel for assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. v. CIT (22 ITR 502), the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT (209 ITR 947).
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 June, 1969
6(c). The learned AM took into account the following test laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. CIT (195 ITR 386):
P. J. Udani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 24 December, 1964
The above facts clearly show that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade. If the transaction was business or adventure in the nature of trade, the normal natural course would have been to complete the transaction as early as possible and make profit. As this was not done, the learned JM held that the transaction involved was not an adventure in the nature of trade. For the above reasons, learned JM relied upon the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of P.J. Udani v. CIT (63 ITR 766).
1