Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.35 seconds)Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 11 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jt. Cit vs Dinesh Kumar Gupta on 12 August, 2004
It is only a one time technology transfer cost which is to be received by
the assessee and is to be assessed only in the year under
consideration. Therefore, on merits also the assessee has no case for
coming to the conclusion that the entire receipts of US $ 1 million has
to be divided into five parts. The case law relied upon by learned AR
also do not support the case of the assessee. Coming to the decision
in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goyal (supra), the assessee was
running an institution for coaching students and the tuition fee was
received in advance and it was held that if the entire receipts are
treated as income, it would lead to an anomalous situation inasmuch
as the expenses which will be incurred in the next year, are to be
deducted to arrive at the net income. Here, the assessee has not been
able to show that it has to incur or it has incurred any of the
expenditures relating to the receipt of US $ 1 million which has been
received by the assessee in the shape of one time technology transfer
cost.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
In the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT
(supra), it was held that the basic concept is that the assessee must
have acquired a right to receive the income. According to that
principle, in the present case, as the assessee has acquired the right to
receive the income, it is to be assessed in the year in which it has
acquired the right to receive the income. There is no provision in the
agreement according to which it can be said that the right of the
assessee to receive the income was restricted in any manner and was
related to the year other than the year in which it was to be received
by the assessee.
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Messrs. Calcutta Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 12 May, 1959
In the case of Calcutta Company Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), it was held
that the expression 'profit or gains' has to be understood in its
commercial sense and there can be no computation of such profits and
gains until the expenditure which is necessary for the purpose of
earning receipt is deducted therefrom and it was held that whether the
expenditure is actually incurred or the liability in respect thereof has
accrued even though it may have to be discharged at some future
date. Here, the assessee has not been able to show that what
21 ITA No.288/Del/2011
expenditure is actually incurred or what is the liability in respect
thereof as accrued which has to be discharged by the assessee at a
future date. The terms of the agreement have already been described
in detail in the earlier part of this order and it is not coming out
therefrom that the assessee was to incur any expenditure with regard
to the impugned receipt or there was any liability which was to be
discharged at some future date.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindustan Computers Ltd. on 30 January, 1997
In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Computers Ltd. (supra), the facts
were that the assessee was receiving amounts for annual maintenance
charges and it was held that merely because the entire AMC charges
were transferred to P&L Account will not change the system of
accounting and, on the basis of mercantile system of accounting the
amount could not be taxed.