Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu vs Carborundum Universal Ltd. on 3 August, 1983

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.George Oakes Ltd on 6 June, 2007

Under such circumstances, in the year of change, some discrepancy is bound to happen in the profitability of the company as compared to previous year. However, in succeeding years, there will not be any discrepancy on this account. When the change of accounting method is bona fide and also the same is recognised in accounting principle, the resultant variation in income cannot be forced to be taxed upon the assessee. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd., reported in 149 ITR 759, considered the scope of change of method of accounting and held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 19 - P P Raja - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prasad Productions P. Ltd. on 31 January, 1989

In other words, if a person carries on the business of production of films, he may not only produce the films but also prepare the positive prints for the purpose of exhibition or he may not take steps for the exhibition of the film having produced it. The production and exhibition of a feature film constitutes two distinct and separate stages and while the former would take in all activities which culminate in the production of a feature film, the latter contemplates a stage subsequent to the completion of the production of the film, viz., exhibition of the film produced. Viewed thus, any expenditure incurred in connection with the preparation of the positive prints for purposes of exhibition would really be post-production expenses and also an item of expenditure in relation to business of production and exhibition of feature films and would, therefore, quality for deduction as expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. We have not been referred to any provision in the Act or the rules disallowing such expenditure as an item of business expenditure for the purpose of section 37 of the Act. Though learned counsel for the Revenue placed considerable reliance upon the decision in CIT v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 621 (Mad), we are of the view that decision does not in any manner assist the Revenue. In that case, the assessee claimed deduction of a certain amount in the computation of its profits and gains of the business by way of contribution to the superannuation fund of its foreign collaborators and that claim was disallowed by the authorities below. However, the Tribunal held that though that amount was not an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act as the contribution was not to a recognised provident fund or to an approved superannuation fund nor could be allowed under section 37 of the Act, the payment was allowable under section 28 of the Act. On a reference, it was held that the nature of payment being one described in section 36(1)(iv) of the Act and as it could not be deducted under the section, it could be held to be deductible under section 28 of the Act on general principles in arriving at the true profits and gains of the business in a commercial sense. In the view we have taken that the expenditure incurred in connection with the obtaining of positive prints is really in the nature of post-production expenditure and that there is no provision in the Act or the rules obliging the authorities to disallow such expenditure, the claim of the assessee that such expenditure would fall under section 37 of the Act is, in our view, well-founded. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Atul Products Ltd. on 2 February, 2001

18. Even the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 759, has held that if the method of stock valuation is changed and if the change is bona fide and the changed method has been continued, the difference arising in the income on account of the changed method is not includible in the income of the assessee during the relevant assessment year.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A R Dave - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment ... on 11 September, 2012

7. Guided by the decision of this court reported in 149 ITR 759 ( Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.,) and decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 193 ITR 349 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.,) and also the decisions reported in 286 ITR 207 (Guj) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Standard Radiators P.Ltd.,) and 302 ITR 221 (All) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Willard India Ltd.,), we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's contention and confirming the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the tax case appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.N. Goenka vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 3 March, 1988

4. The principle enunciated in CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 1 (MaD) And Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 646 (Mad), could come into play only when there is no reason whatever to depart from the view taken already. If the High Court finds in any particular matter that the view taken in an earlier decision requires reconsideration, then the only course open to the High Court is to direct the Tribunal to make a reference. Otherwise, it will lead to a situation where a decision once rendered will be conclusive and binding for ever, unless reversed or overruled by the Supreme Court. It is always open to a Division Bench of this court to refer the matter to a larger Bench when it finds it necessary to differ from an earlier decision of a Division Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Sakthi Estates vs State Of Tamilnadu on 21 August, 1995

3. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute regarding the law to be applied since that is made clear in the abovesaid decisions in CIT vs. Carborundum Universal Ltd. (supra) and Sakthi Estates vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Mad)(supra). But all that learned counsel for the respondent submits is that there is no definite proof that the money borrowed has been spent on the land from which agricultural income is not derived. No doubt in this regard learned counsel for the assessee points out that the Tribunal has held as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next