Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 119 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing C.I.T. (Central), Madras vs Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball, ... on 15 July, 1986

Gouri Prasad Goenka And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 March, 1989

30. Therefore, having regard to the special provisions relating to priority industries it cannot be said that there is any conflict between in the judgments in the cases of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. . In the instant case, the assessee is not engaged in a business which comes within the category of priority industries set out in the Fifth Schedule. Therefore, the assessee cannot derive any support from the principles laid down in the case of Canara Workshops P. Ltd. . Computation of income under the Income-tax Act will have to be done, in the instant case, under the head "Capital gains" and all the deductions and allowances will have to be allowed. All adjustments of losses will have to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of arriving at the gross total income as defined in Section 80B. It is only that part of the income which has been included in the gross total income which will be the basis for computation of the relief claimed by the assessee under Section 80T.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 3 - S C Sen - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi vs Indovax P. Ltd. on 19 December, 2012

6. This Court observes in none of the orders, i.e., Assessing Officer, nor the CIT (A), in fact dealt with this issue as squarely or clearly as is being urged today. Furthermore, no such contention that the Avitech undertaking was located within the same premises as the other poultry vaccine division or undertaking was raised before the Tribunal. Certainly, the grounds recorded by the Tribunal do not reflect this. In the absence of these basic facts, this Court is left to surmise as to whether in fact the claim of the Revenue at this third appellate stage is created. Being a pure question of fact, this Court would be slow in interfering with the conclusions of the authorities below on this aspect and there is no specific fact finding on the aspect. As far as the legality of the conclusions are concerned, the Court notices that the Tribunal and the CIT (A) relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Canara Workshops, 161 ITR 320.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Hotel And Allied Trades (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 April, 2007

In CIT v. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd. (supra), the question arose as to whether in computing the profits for the purpose of deduction under Section 80E of the IT Act, 1961, the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels should not be set off against the profits from the manufacture of automobile or ancillaries. The assessee was manufacturing automobile spares. Products manufactured by the company were covered by the list to the Vth Schedule to the IT Act. During the previous year in question, the assessee commenced manufacture of alloy steels which was also included in the Vth Schedule and sustained the loss. There were profits disclosed from the automobile ancillary unit. Assessee claimed relief at eight per cent under Section 80E on the profits from the automobile unit. The question which arose was the stand of the Department that the relief under Section 80E was to be given on the profits from the automobile unit, after setting off the loss in the alloy steel unit. Section 80E provided for deduction from the profits and gains in an amount equal to eight per cent attributable, inter alia, to the manufacture or production of any articles specified in the list in the Vth Schedule. The Court found that the assessee carries on two industries, both of which are under the Vth Schedule. The Court held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - K Joseph - Full Document

Mercator Lines Ltd. vs Deputy Cit, Range 5(1) on 25 June, 2007

In the case of Canara Workshops (P) Ltd. (supra) the Lordship of the Apex court have categorically held that when the assessee had more than one priority industry loss in one need not be set off against the profit of another for the purpose of granting relief under Section 80-IB of the Act. In the light of this judgment if the assessee is maintaining separate set of accounts of different barges the loss suffered by other barges will not be set off against those barges which have earned profit and are eligible for deduction. While computing the deduction under Section 80-IB on individual barges, computation is to be made as per Chapter VI-A of the Act. As per Section 80AB the amount of income of a barge is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under this chapter and that shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the assessee and which is included in his gross total income. If that be the case, deduction under Section 33AC is to be allowed first and deduction under Section 80-IB is to be computed on the reminder.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Best And Company (P.) Ltd. on 25 March, 1994

The above two decisions were referred to in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320. In the above-said three decisions of the Supreme Court, it was clearly held that the benefit under section 80E is exigible on the net profits of the new industrial undertaking and not on the gross profit. That is in the present case the benefit under section 80E of the Act is available only after deduction of bonus and commission payable to the director. The reasons given by the Tribunal in order to support its view are totally outside the purview of what is stated in section 80E of the Act. Since the reasons given by the Tribunal are extraneous to the provisions contained in section 80E of the Act, we are unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the benefits under section 80E of the Act would be available on the profit of the new industrial undertaking before deduction of the bonus and commission payments made to its directors. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The question referred to us for the assessment year 1969-70 does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not answering the same. No costs. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.S.P. Nadar Sons on 31 January, 1989

8. CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. does not in any manner assist the assessee. In that case, the court was considering section 80B of the Act and the question was whether the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels, a priority industry, could not be set off against the profits of the manufacture of automobile ancillaries, which was also a priority industry, carried on by the assessee. It was in that context that the court pointed out that in the application of section 80E of the Act, each industry must be considered on its own and the profits and gains earned by one priority industry cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee and that in computing the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80E of the Act, the incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steel, a priority industry, could not be set off against the profits of the manufacture of automobile ancillaries, another priority industry, as the object of section 80E of the Act would be served only by confining its application to the profits and gains of a single industry. We do not see how that decision could be of any assistance to the assessee. That case dealt with section 80E of the Act, providing for deduction of 8% in computing the profits and gains in respect of certain priority industries and had nothing whatever to do with the computation of capital gains arising out of long-term capital assets, specifically dealt with under section 70(2)(ii) and 80T of the Act. We are of the view that decision has no application at all in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Marshall Sons And Co. Mfg. Ltd. on 10 February, 1989

In CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that for the purpose of granting relief to an industry under section 80E of the Act, an account must be taken when computing the profits and gains attributable to that industry of the a balancing charge worked out under sub-section (2) of section 41 as well as the items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate carried forward from earlier years, but that for the purpose of section 80E of the Act, such unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate should appear to relate to the same business and that were was no indication in that case that any of them related to any business or industry different from that, whose profits and gains from the subject-matter of the computation under section 80E of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Delhi Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. on 30 July, 2004

26. Since on behalf of the assessee it has been claimed that the issue is covered by the decision of CIT v. Vishaka Industries (supra), it may also be stated briefly therein their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the facts which are pari-materia with the present case relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in CIT v. Canara Workshop (P) Ltd. held that :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next