Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)Achutananda Baidya vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen And Ors on 8 April, 1997
To the
same effect is the decision in Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya
Kumar Gayen AIR 1997 SC 2077 and Omar Salay Mohamed
Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras AIR 1959 SC
1238.
Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959
To the
same effect is the decision in Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya
Kumar Gayen AIR 1997 SC 2077 and Omar Salay Mohamed
Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras AIR 1959 SC
1238.
Fenner India Ltd., J.K. Corporation ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 9 August, 2001
13. Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed
out that the AO had mentioned credit balance instead of debit
balance and not considered the debit balance of KME amounting
to Rs.25,74,770.29/-. In the memorandum of appeal, an entire
reconciliation statement as per the ledger account of RIL and
KME has been set out. It was contended that treating the debit
balance of KME of Rs.1,65,32,778/- as income was erroneous in
terms of accounting standards. The debit balance of
25,74,770.29/- in the account of KME could not have been treated
as the income of the Assessee. In fact, no information had been
called by the AO from KME at all and that would have confirmed
ITA No.68 of 2009 Page 5 of 7
to the AO what the debit balance was in its accounts. Reliance
was placed on the decision of this Court in J.K. Corporation Ltd.
v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar
2007 (210) ELT 501 (Ori) where it was held that if the Tribunal
does not consider the materials which are furnished before it and
comes to a conclusion that consideration of relevant materials was
necessary, such finding can be set aside by the High Court.
1