The decision in this case arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated June 1, 1985 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business of manufacturing polyester filament yarn of the type known as Partially Oriented Yarn (“POY”)
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.
CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) sales-tax authorities had carried on certain investigations which revealed that a racket of issuing bogus vouchers by the said parties was prevailing in the market. The Income-tax Officer also learnt from local inquiries that the parties were not available at the addresses given.
ASSETS RECEIVED UNDER GIFT – Where A acquired agricultural lands in 1961, and after converting them into non-agricultural use in 1962 gifted the lands to B in 1966, and later B sold them, the cost of acquisition under section 49(1)(ii) would be the amount originally paid by A, and not the value on the date of conversion or on the date of gift
Whether ITAT was justified in allowing depreciation even though the particulars were not furnished in the appropriate part of the return of income but they were furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer at the latter’s requisition ?
We have to ascertain whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to estimate the profits. It is not disputed that the books of account of the assessee were not accepted. That being so, profit had to be estimated. Such estimate was made by the authorities on the basis of the performance of the predecessor-in-interest of the assessee
Amount of the unpaid price cannot be said to be a loan advanced by the non-resident company to the assessee-company nor can be the non-resident company be said to be a lender to the assesse-company so far as that amount was concerned. Since the non-resident company cannot be said to have lent the amount of the unpaid purchase price to the assessee-company either in cash or in kind
In this case the challenge before the Court was to an order dated 29.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax who had dismissed the petitioner’s Revision Application filed under Section 33A and Section 264(1) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The issue pertaied to the Assessment Year 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, for which period the petitioner had incurred certain expenditure
The appellants are the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue); and the respondent, Ponkunnam Traders, a firm, is the assessee. The judgment under appeal is reported as Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ker). Since the question involved is fairly simple,
