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,
Badrinath Agarwal v. CIT (Allahabad High Court) 65 ITR 242 (All. ) In estimating the income the conditions of trade obtaining and the average margin of profit in the particular line of business are to be borne in mind. It is clear that these factors in the present case have been kept in view and, therefore, it is not possible to say that the estimate of income was arbitrary or capricious to justify holding that some error of law had been committed by the Tribunal in confirming the flat rate of 5% applied by the departmental authorities
Under Income-tax Act the annual value of the property is to be taken as a sum which the property might reasonably be expected to fetch. The annual value is no doubt a hypothetical sum. But what is to be taken into consideration is the whole of the consideration which the landlord receives from the tenant for his right to use and occupy the property.
The question arising for consideration both in the reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act as well as in W.P. No. 925 of 1955 are identical and relate to the proper rule to be applied for determining the amortisation of films for computing the income, profits and gains of the assessee which is carrying on business as a film distributor. The assessee in the Reference Case No. 27 of 1955 is the petitioner in the writ petition.
CIT v. S Sen & Others (Orissa High Court) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa) The proceeding arises out of two application consolidated because of the facts being identical, by the Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess profits Tax, Bihar and Orissa, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess profits tax Act for the stating a case and a case stated for the opinion of this Court on the following three question of law :-
