Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court rules for assessee on manufacturing, estoppel, and set-off issues</h1> <h3>Anant Mills Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Anant Mills Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1994] 206 ITR 582, 109 CTR 231 Issues Involved:1. Determination of whether the assessee carried on business activities in the assessment year 1968-69.2. Entitlement of the assessee to reagitate the point in a subsequent year.3. Determination of the actual year of business discontinuation.4. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against income under the head 'Other sources' for the assessment year 1972-73.Summary:Issue 1: Determination of Business Activities in Assessment Year 1968-69The Tribunal held that the question of whether the assessee carried on business activities in the assessment year 1968-69 had to be determined in the assessment order for that year only. The High Court found that the manufacturing activities of the assessee had come to an end with effect from October 1, 1966, and the subsequent sales were realisation sales to facilitate the winding up of the business. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the sales of stock-in-trade after October 1, 1966, were part and parcel of business activity.Issue 2: Reagitation of the Point in Subsequent YearThe Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to reagitate the point in a subsequent year. The High Court, however, ruled that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply to successive assessments. The Tribunal's reliance on the decision in CIT v. Army and Navy Stores Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 959 (Bom) was misplaced as the facts of the case did not support the application of estoppel. Therefore, the assessee was not precluded from contending the closure of business with effect from October 1, 1966.Issue 3: Actual Year of Business DiscontinuationThe Tribunal concluded that the assessee discontinued the business in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69. The High Court found that the business activities had ceased on October 1, 1966, based on the resolution of the board of directors, the discontinuation of electricity supply, and the winding-up petition filed in March 1967. The sales of finished goods were deemed realisation sales. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the business continued after October 1, 1966, was incorrect.Issue 4: Set-off of Unabsorbed DepreciationThe Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation could not be set off against income under the head 'Other sources' unless there was business income. The High Court referred to the decision in CIT v. Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 773, which allowed the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against assessable income of a subsequent year, even if the business ceased to exist. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the assessee was entitled to set off the unabsorbed depreciation.Conclusion:The High Court answered all questions in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal's findings were not justified based on the facts and legal principles discussed. The High Court directed the registry to renumber the references as Income-tax References Nos. 163 of 1977 and 163A of 1977. There was no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found