Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.29 seconds)Section 80J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. on 12 March, 1964
In fact, some of the decisions have gone to the extent of holding that in view of certain observations in Mahalakshmi Textile Mills' case [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), to which we have made reference there, is no limit to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and any question which could be raised before the ITO could, irrespective of the scope of the appeal before the AAC, be raised before the Tribunal. This seems to us to be not a correct approach and does not follow from the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Ahmedabad vs Karamchand Premchand Ltd.,Ahmedabad on 28 April, 1960
Of course, if it is another aspect of the same question as held in Karamchand Premchand's case [1977] 107 ITR 683, it had to be permitted, but on the facts of the case, whether it was necessary to permit it seems to have been not noticed in that case, for if the entire relief that the assessee sought was covered by the answer to question No. 1, there was no case for raising the other ground. If the assessee gets relief on the answer to question No. 1, there would be no scope for looking into another aspect. Whatever that be, it is evident that in that decision, the Division Bench was only purporting to follow the earlier decision of this court.
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Steel Cast Corporation on 17 December, 1975
33. Now, we will refer to a later decision of this court in CIT v. Steel Cast Corporation [1977] 107 ITR 683, a decision which had been cited by other High Courts on many occasions. The case of the assessee there was that though he had not raised in the ground of appeal filed before the AAC any ground relating to refer under s. 80J(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, he did raise it really at the time of hearing and the AAC agreed to admit the further ground, but when he actually came to pass the order, he did not grant any relief under s. 80J(3) of the Act. When the assessee filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, he complained that the AAC had failed to consider his contention regarding relief under s. 80J, though it had been raised before the AAC, at the time of hearing. The Tribunal did not want to enter into that controversy as to whether it was raised or not, but felt that the point was one of law and, therefore, permitted that to be raised before the Tribunal, remanded the case to the AAC to enable him to consider this aspect and pass orders giving an opportunity to the ITO and the assessee to put up their respective cases. The question that arose in the reference as reframed was whether the Tribunal was right in the circumstances and facts in directing the AAC to consider the claim of the assessee under s. 80J, a claim which was not made either before the ITO or before the AAC.
M/S. Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 10 April, 1963
In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 326, the Bombay High Court took the same view as that of this court and after referring to the observations in the decision in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710, to which we have adverted earlier, the court said (p. 337) :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-I vs Anand Prasad And Others on 22 September, 1980
In the case before the Delhi Court in CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388, certain income of the assessee arising out of dealing with land was sought to be taxed as income from business. The assessee disputed that he carried on such business and obtained any profits taxable as business gains. The ITO negatived this case. The AAC held that the sale of lands did not constitute business and set aside the assessments in respect of the profits from the sale of the land. In the appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue, it was contented that if the profits were not taxable as business gains, they were taxable under the head "Capital gains". This plea did not succeed and the matter was taken by the Revenue to the High Court in reference. The facts necessary for determining whether capital gains accrued would be entirely different from the facts available on record. Profits from business could be determined on the basis of facts relating to sale price, purchase price, investment after purchase and other relevant matters, but for determination of capital gains, other facts such as the value of the plots as on January 1, 1954, would be necessary and these facts could not be gathered by looking into income-tax assessments. The question was whether the new point should be allowed to be raised under such circumstances. The court was of the view that the Tribunal was right in not allowing the new point to be raised in the circumstances of the case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Tamil ... vs Sri Rajagopal Transports (Pvt.) Ltd. on 17 November, 1982
54. Since we have already adverted to the scope of these three decisions, we do not think it is necessary to restate the principles which we have indicated or the limitations reflected in the decisions themselves. We do not see any warrant, with great respect to the learned judges of the Madras High Court, to consider those decisions as supporting the view that any and every ground could be urged before the Appellate Tribunal. The same view was reflected in two later decisions of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) P. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad) and CIT v. Sri Rajagopal Transports P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 573.
Hukumchand Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central ... on 22 September, 1966
The decision in Hukumchand's case [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) was simply explained away saying that the Supreme Court was concerned in that case with only the question whether the Tribunal could entertain fresh submission or contention on the part of the Department which had not been considered by the AAC.