Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Judiciary

SC judgment with retrospective effect can be a valid ground for condonation of delay in appeal filing

November 6, 1973 7921 Views 1 comment Print

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

Additional Income-Tax Officer vs Ponkunnam Traders (Kerala High Court)

February 12, 1973 1288 Views 0 comment Print

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,

CIT vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd. (Supreme Court) 88 ITR 192

January 29, 1973 27491 Views 0 comment Print

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.

UOI & others vs. Ogale glass Works – Supreme Court -1971 AIR 2577

September 1, 1971 1449 Views 0 comment Print

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v Ogale glass Works 1971 AIR 2577 held that the award of industrial tribunal cannot stand in the way of enforcing the statutory provision cast on the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

SC judgement in the case of CIT West Bengal Vs. Durga Prasad More

August 26, 1971 5283 Views 0 comment Print

In the Supreme Court of India. CIT west Bengal filed appeal before SC against the order of High Court and SC delivered judgement on 27.8.1971. The name of the assessee was Sh. Durga Parshad More.

CIT vs. Birla Spinning and Weavings Ltd. Supreme Court) (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC)

August 17, 1971 3317 Views 0 comment Print

The expression for the purpose of the business in s. 10(2)(xv) is wider than the expression for the purpose of earning profits. The former covers, not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its assets and property.

AO mandatorily bound to exercise power U/s. 154

July 21, 1970 2088 Views 0 comment Print

Hirday Narain Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) Exercise of power to rectify an error apparent from the record is conferred upon the Income-tax Officer in aid of enforcement of a right. The Income-tax Officer is an officer concerned with assessment and collection of revenue, and the power to rectify the order of assessment conferred upon him to ensure that injustice to the assessee or to the Revenue may be avoided.

ITO vs. Seth Brothers 1969 (74) ITR 836 (SC)

July 15, 1969 8254 Views 0 comment Print

Section 132 does not confer any arbitrary authority upon the Revenue Officers. The Commissioner or the Director of Inspection must have, in consequence of information, reason to believe that the statutory conditions for the exercise of the power to order

ITO must estimate Income on fair basis and not arbitrarily if Assessee not maintained sufficient books of account

January 19, 1967 1662 Views 0 comment Print

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

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Supreme Court)

September 20, 1966 11585 Views 0 comment Print

Expenditure incurred to resist in a civil proceeding the enforcement of a measure-legislative or executive, which imposes restrictions on the carrying on of a business or to obtain a declaration that the measure is invalid would.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031