In Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Supreme Court held that in a building contract which is one, entire and indivisible there is no sale of goods, and it is not within the competence of the Provisional Legislature under Entry 48 to impose a tax on the supply of materials used in the contract treating it as sale
Section 147(b)-Scope of-Assessment year 1961-62-Reassessment-Interpretation and meaning of the word information-Material coming to the notice of the Income Tax Officer subsequent to original assessment-Meaning of the word Escape. Dissolution of Firm-Valuation of closing stoc- Principles-In continuing business closing stock to be valued at cost or market price which ever is lower-Where business is discontinued, the closing stock to be valued at market price.
A retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute, so as the impair existing right or obligation otherwise than as regards matter of procedure unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment.
An appeal by the State. against a decision enhancing compensation in respect of acquisition of lands for a public purpose, raising important questions as regards principles of valuation, was dismissed by the High Court as time barred, being four days beyond time, by rejecting an application for condonation of dalay. The State appealed to this Court by special leave.Allowing the appeal,
CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration (P) Ltd. (Supreme Court) Unabsorbed carried forward losses and current depreciation -Deduction of – Unabsorbed carried forward losses cannot be given preference over current depreciation While computing the total income of an assessee in an assessment year.
The High Court held that there was nothing illegal in the issuance of the search warrant, the consequent search, the seizure during the search and taking over of the documents by the Income Tax Department under Section 132-A and dismissed the petition.
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.—These appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under section 66A(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, arise out of the judgment delivered and order passed on 3rd January, 1973, by the High Court of Allahabad in Income-tax Reference No. 450 of 1965. The following question of law had been referred to the High Court
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 and Company’s (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964-Rule I of Second Schedule-Scope of- ‘Provision” and “Reserve’-Distinction- A sum of money transferred from current profits to general reserves- Dividend paid from that fund-General reserve how calculated.
Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1922 states that income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller shall be computed as if it were income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income, profits and gains liable to tax.
If two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well ‘accepted rule of construction recognised by this Court in several of its decisions.
