Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)Section 144A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
16. Where a method of accounting accepted by the income-tax authorities for a large number of years is sought to be altered for no reason causing great hardship and harassment to the petitioner, the directions issued under section 144A are without jurisdiction. The petitioner did not have any equally effective or alternative remedy. Complying with these directions would involve the petitioners in lengthy proceedings which may involve reopening of assessments for several past years. (See in this connection Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO ).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tanubai D. Desai on 3 August, 1971
In the case of CIT v. Tanubai D Desai [1972] 84 ITR 713, a Division Bench of this court has held that the position of a solicitor vis-a-vis the moneys received by him from or on behalf of his clients is that of a quasi-trust. He holds such money in a fiduciary capacity. In that case, the question arose about the interest derived from moneys kept in clients' accounts. The court held that this cannot be considered as the income of the solicitor. After referring to the rules then in force which are similar to the rules in force now, the court observed (at page 715) :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Sandersons And Morgans on 24 April, 1968
In the case of CIT v. Sandersons and Morgans [1970] 75 ITR 433 (Cal), the firm of solicitors concerned had transferred to its profit and loss account some unclaimed balances in the personal ledger of their clients. This amount was ultimately apportioned between the partners in their respective profit-sharing ratio. The court held that this amount was not a revenue receipt liable to Income-tax. It said that when a solicitor receives money from his client, he does not do so as a trading receipt but he receives the money of the principal in his capacity as an agent and that too in a fiduciary capacity. The solicitor remains liable to account for this money to his client. It is only when the final adjustments of accounts are made between the solicitor and his client and the amount is brought to the profit and loss account that it becomes income in the hands of the solicitor.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Central) ... vs K. Sankarapandia Asari And Sons on 1 March, 1980
14. Apart from section 145, there is no power in the Income-tax Officer to impress his own method of accounting on the assessee. (See in this connection CIT v. K Sankarapandia Asari and Sons [1981] 130 ITR 541). The directions, therefore, which are given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner are without jurisdiction. They would result in great harassment and severe hardship to the petitioners and this is a fit case where intervention is called for under article 226.
Karnataka Industrial Areas ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 18 March, 1987
15. It was submitted by Mr. Bhatia that the Income-tax Act is a complete code by itself. No intervention, therefore, is warranted under article 226. He has relied upon a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 96. This decision, however, does not support his contention. In that case, the petitioner had claimed exemption under section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The claim for exemption was rejected by the Commissioner. The petitioners contended that having regard to the view expressed by the Commissioner, it would be futile to appear before the assessing authority and hence they approached the court under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the contention and said that the petitioners had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy open to them. There was no need to exercise substantial jurisdiction under article 226. This decision is of no assistance in the present case.
1