Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.30 seconds)
Hussien Abdulkarim Balwa, Mumbai vs Assessee on 29 June, 2012 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. on 12 March, 1964

13. In this regard the learned counsel submitted that in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal a specific ground was raised contending, inter alia, that rental income ought to have been taxed under the head "Income from House Property". At any rate, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. 66 ITR 710 the Tribunal is empowered to determine the pertinent issue which arises out of the orders passed by the lower authorities and all questions, whether of law or of facts, which relate to the assessment of the assessee can be raised 14 ITA No.2680&2681/Mum/2008 Ismail & Hussein Abdulkarim Balwas before the Tribunal. He thus strongly supported the order passed by the learned Judicial Member.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 260 - Full Document

Dy.Commr.Of Income Tax vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 3 December, 2008

1. It is a well-established principle of law that whether an asset is held as stock-in-trade or investment will depend upon the assessee's intention to deal with the asset. This intention can be inferred from the entries in his books of account as well as his subsequent conduct in dealing with the asset. If the accounting practice followed by the assessee is in consonance with general principles of accountancy and is not repugnant to any provision of law, it has to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable income of the assessee, as laid down in CIT v. UP State industrial Development Corporation 225 ITR 703 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 68 - M Sharma - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mahendra Mills on 15 March, 2000

5. The mere fact that no depreciation was claimed on this asset from A.Y. 1999-2000 and onwards will not by itself convert the business asset into investment, because as per the then prevailing legal position, claim of depreciation was at the option Of the assessee and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC), if the assessee did not furnish the necessary particulars as prescribed u/s 34, depreciation could not be thrusted or forced on the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 164 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Allied Publishers Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay City ... on 15 September, 1967

In this sense, the assessees have received effective advantage or benefit of depreciation and therefore, relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 68 ITR 546 (Born), it cannot be claimed any longer that depreciation has not been actually allowed to the assessees. Thus, the assessees' case fails even on this count.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mrs. Sudha Sharma vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 November, 1992

20. Learned Counsel relied upon several case law which are distinguishable on facts. In most of the cases the issue concerns the assessment years prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Act and in the other set of cases the implication of Explanation 5 to section 32 was not considered in detail. Though in the case of Divine Construction Company the I.T.A.T. 'D' Bench, Mumbai observed that section 50 of the Act comes into play only when depreciation was actually claimed and allowed in the earlier years but the Bench has not analysed the provisions of Explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Act in coming to such conclusion and merely focused on the language of section 50 of the Act which, in my considered opinion, is at variance with the decision of the I.T.A.T.Mumbai Bench in the case of Mrs. Sudha S.Trivedi (supra) wherein the Bench observed as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next