Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (3.69 seconds)
Documents citing The Indian Overseas Bank Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 23 April, 1970

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs N. C. Upadhyaya And Another. Tata Iron & ... on 5 March, 1973

Mr. Joshi on behalf of the respondents, however, contended that, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, profit and loss account originally prepared and passed by a company cannot be subsequently amended by it and that the Income-tax Officer has no power to allow development rebate by the end of the assessment year in 1969 after requisite entries had been made by the petitioners in their account for preceding years creating a development rebate reserve respectively. In view of the fact that Mr. Palkhivala did not argue the point on merits, we do not propose to decide the point. We, however, take the view that the Supreme Court has not decide the point, and, with respect, we do not agree with construction placed by the Gujarat High Court on the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Andhra Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana and Allahabad High Courts have taken views different from the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. If after long drawn process of reasoning on a point on which there obviously are two opinions, High Courts in India have taken different views, it is obvious that it is a debatable point of law. There can, therefore, be no mistake apparent from the record or which is an obvious or patent mistake. In our opinion, notice under section 154 and the rectification orders cannot be sustained as valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs N.C. Upadhyaya And Anr. on 5 March, 1973

Mr. Joshi on behalf of the respondents, however, contended that, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, profit and loss account originally prepared and passed by a company cannot be subsequently amended by it and that the Income-tax Officer has no power to allow development rebate by the end of the assessment year in 1969 after requisite entries had been made by the petitioners in their account for preceding years creating a development rebate reserve respectively. In view of the fact that Mr. Palkhivala did not argue the point on merits, we do not propose to decide the point. We, however, take the view that the Supreme Court has not decide the point, and, with respect, we do not agree with construction placed by the Gujarat High Court on the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Andhra Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana and Allahabad High Courts have taken views different from the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. If after long drawn process of reasoning on a point on which there obviously are two opinions, High Courts in India have taken different views, it is obvious that it is a debatable point of law. There can, therefore, be no mistake apparent from the record or which is an obvious or patent mistake. In our opinion, notice under section 154 and the rectification orders cannot be sustained as valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Narula Cold Storage & Ice Factory on 1 December, 1975

'unless the reserve was created in the very same accounting year, development rebate should not bo granted ', agreeing with the view of tho Madras High Court and overruling the decision of the Andhra Pradcsh and the Rajasthan High Courts. The Gujarat High Court held that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the benefit of the development rebate could not be granted to the assessce in the case before it because of the non-compliance with the requisite conditions as to creation of a development rebate reserve. The learned judges of the Gujarat High Court also took the view that Section 154 of the Income-tax Act was attracted as there was a mistake apparent on the record of the case. With regard to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court we must say with respect that, in our opinion, the Supreme Court nowhere lays down in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1970] 77 ITR 512 (SC) the time at which the development rebate reserve must be created. We are unable to read in the judgment of the Supreme Court any observations to the effect that development rebate reserve must be created in the year of installation or fixation of the machinery irrespective of profits in that year or that the income-tax authorities could not permit the assessee to make up any deficiency in development rebate reserve which has occurred bona fide in subsequent years. In the case before the Supreme Court no development rebate reserve had been created at all at any time and, therefore, the claim for rebate was disallowed."
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Keshavlal Vithaldas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 18 March, 1976

Once that profit and loss account is made up, it is no longer open to transfer any amount to the development rebate and in the passage which we have set out above, the Supreme Court has pointed out in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.'s case that the amount to be transferred to that account is to be a debited before the profit and loss account is made up. With respect, therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned judges of the Allahabad High Court when they hold that the statute does not specify any period of time within which the relevant entries should be made regarding debiting the profit and loss account with the amount of the development rebate and crediting the said amount to a separate development rebate reserve account.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 August, 1971

7. This judgment of the Madras High Court, therefore, supports the view that the expression " actually allowed " in proviso (b) means actually allowable or claimable. The view expressed in this judgment was followed by the same High Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and received the approval of the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We would have occasion to advert to this decision of the Supreme Court later in this judgment as well.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - A N Sen - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Arasan And Company on 14 November, 1983

However, having regard to the view taken by this court on the interpretation of s. 34(3)(a) and also of the Supreme Court in India Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT , we cannot accept the said decision refrred to by the learned counsel for the assessee as laying down the correct legal position. We have, therefore, to answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The Revenue will get costs from the assessee. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs S. Rajagopalan, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 25 April, 1973

With regard to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court we must state that the Supreme Court nowhere lays down in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax that development rebate reserve must be credited irrespective of profits. The aspect of the matter, however, did not concern the Gujarat High Court because in the case before it although there was a profit no development rebate reserve was credit in the relevant year in which there were profits. We are unable to read in the judgment of the Supreme Court any observation to the effect that development rebate reserve must be created irrespective of profits. In the case before the Supreme Court no development rebate reserve had been created at all any time, and, therefore, the claim for rebate was disallowed. In the case before the Gujarat High Court, no development rebate reserve was created in spite of profits.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next