Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.39 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
In any case, there is no bar on the appellate authorities to consider the
claim of the assessee on merit even in the absence of revised return filed by him
making such claim as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India)
Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 and as a matter of fact, the learned CIT(Appeals) has
considered and decided the same on merit by his impugned order.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Simon Carves Limited on 17 August, 1976
27. As regards the objection of the revenue authorities that under the Companies
Act audited accounts approved by the shareholders cannot be subsequently revised,
the learned counsel for the assessee contended that charge of income tax is not
restricted to computation of income as arising from the final accounts of an
assessee. The charge of income tax is on the actual facts of the case of an assessee as
found from the scrutiny and enquiry made by the Assessing Officer and other
income tax authorities. He reiterated that entries in the books of accounts of an
assessee are not conclusive and it is to be seen which of the two final accounts are
closer to actual facts of the case and lead to correct computation of income
chargeable to tax. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. 105 ITR 212 (SC), he contended that the Assessing
Officer should have focused his attention on finding out what is the correct amount
of business income of the assessee during the financial year instead of bothering
about which of the two balance sheets would prevail under the Companie Act. He
pointed out that the revised final accounts were submitted by the assessee to the
Company Law authorities and there has been no objection from them till today.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Birla Gwalior P. Ltd. on 22 April, 1969
Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment delivered in the case of Birla Gwalior P. Ltd. (supra) found
that its judgment in the case of Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. (supra), on the other
hand, was directly on the point and following the same, it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that it is not hypothetical accrual of income that has got to be taken
into consideration but the real accrual of income.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ferozepur Finance (P.) Ltd. on 17 May, 1980
Cancellation of the bookings by some stray buyer
merely resulted into the sale of the flat to another buyer. The cancellation of
projects resulted into anticipated income not materializing. He contended that the
need to revise the earlier accounting entry therefore arose because it was necessary
to withdraw recognition of revenue which did not accrue at all. Reliance in this
regard was placed by him upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of CIT Vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) and CIT Vs. A. Gaj
apathy Naidu 53 ITR 114(SC) as well as that of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ferozpur Finance (P) Ltd. 124 ITR 619 (P&H) to
contend that even under mercantile system of accounting no income can be
assessed unless accrued.