Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab & ... on 5 October, 1964

Ralson Carbon Black Ltd. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 29 July, 2003

11. Shri Salil Sagar argued that the judgment of the division A Bench in Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1996] 103 STC 491 (P&H) cannot be read as laying down a correct law because it did not consider the provision of rule 20 of the Rules which prescribes the time-limit for filing of return and the court may refer the issue to a larger Bench, but having carefully gone through g the judgments of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota [1981] 48 STC 466 and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC) we are unable to agree with him. It is true that rule 20 prescribes the time- limit within which the assessee is required to file return and violation thereof can be penalised under section 23 of the State Act. However, an order of penalty cannot be passed under section 10(6) and interest cannot be levied on account of delayed filing of return.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K S Garewal - Full Document

Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 10 April, 1967

-infringe s. 15 of the Central Act. The Punjab Act being good, it is only the assessments that can be challenged on the ground that they violate the second proviso to S. 5 of the Punjab Act. This aspect was not apparently brought to the notice of this Court in Modi Mills v. C.I.T. Punjab(1). Accordingly I would dismiss Civil Appeal No. 2386 of 1966 with costs, and allow Civil Appeals Nos. 2387 of 1966 and 2388 -of 1966, with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 90 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

M/S. New Mangalore Port Authority, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 December, 2023

The Revenue in support of its submissions has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Arisudana Spinning Mills vs. CIT (supra). We find that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision would not apply in the instant case. The need to maintain separate books of account in the said case was necessitated because of the natureof business of the assessee therein. The assessee therein had claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 801A of the Act in respect of manufacturing activity and trading activity. In the instant case, the assessee is providing telecommunication services. No manufacturing or trading activity was carried out by the assessee except for sale of Pagers. Be that as it may, as pointed earlier there is no statutory requirement for maintaining separate books for two different segments.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sterling Steels And Wires Ltd. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 30 October, 1979

31. Even otherwise, it does not stand to reason that a dealer who acts in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the rules framed thereunder should be made to suffer in preference to a dealer who obtains a registration certificate on some conditions and then tries to go back on those conditions. The only thing to be seen in such a case is whether the charging section makes an express provision for the levy of the tax on the purchasing dealer or not. In the instant case, Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act expressly authorises such an action to be taken against the purchasing dealer and it is on this basis that the provisions of Section 4B are being invoked for calling upon the petitioners to pay sales tax. This principle is in line with the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills' case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 310 (S.C.). In that case, the firm was called upon to pay tax because the goods had not been utilised by it in accordance with the express or implied conditions of the registration certificate granted to it. To me it appears that Section 5(3)(b) of the Act contemplates the cases of those dealers who merely purchase and sell goods in the normal course of their trade instead of utilising these goods in the process of manufacture. In any event, as noticed earlier, there is no conflict between these provisions and since they can stand side by side they have to be interpreted in a harmonious manner. All that Section 5(3) of the Act requires is that the tax should be levied on the declared goods at one stage and no dealer should be called upon to pay the tax twice over. This safeguard also finds an express mention towards the penultimate part of Section 4B of the Act. When questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that the cases in hand did not involve any double taxation. They only submitted that since Section 5(3) of the Act started with a non obstante clause and the cases did not fall within the letter of Sub-clause (b) of that section, they were not entitled to pay any tax at all. This stand taken on behalf of the petitioners, as already observed, cannot be justified when all the provisions of the Act are read together in a harmonious manner. The second question is also answered against the petitioners and in favour of the revenue.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 8(3)(2), Mumbai on 28 November, 2022

The Revenue in support of its submissions has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Arisudana Spinning Mills vs. CIT (supra). We find that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision would not apply in the instant case. The need to maintain separate books of account in the said case was necessitated because of the natureof business of the assessee therein. The assessee therein had claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act in respect of manufacturing activity and trading activity. In the instant case, the assessee is providing telecommunication services. No manufacturing or trading activity was carried out by the assessee except for sale of Pagers. Be that as it may, as pointed earlier there is no statutory requirement for maintaining separate books for two different segments.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ge Capital Services India vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 August, 2006

In the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have also said the same thing that the replacement may amount to renovation or repairs which may or may not be entitled to deduction under Section 37. Keeping these aspects in mind we now proceed to consider the nature whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee in the assessment years before us can be allowed as revenue expenditure. It is seen that the assessee took on lease office premises located at AIFACS building w.e.f. 1st March, 1994. The assessment years before us are first three years of the lease and the assessee has incurred the following expenditure on renovation of the aforesaid office premises:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 37 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Punjab Khandsari Udyog And Ors. vs The Additional Excise And Taxation ... on 7 April, 1982

5. With illimitable fairness, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the learned Advocate-General, Haryana, stated that the Polestar Co. Ltd.'s case [1978] 41 STC 409 (SC) now covers the field. The rather half-hearted attempt he made to distinguish the said case was on the ground that apparently in the Supreme Court case the registration certificate and the declaration forms were made under the earlier existing statute which was later amended whilst in the present case, even when the registration certificate was granted in the year 1965 as also the corresponding declaration forms were both contrary to the amendment in the Act, which had been made earlier in the year 1963. On these premises, it was sought to be contended that the petitioners should be debarred from deriving any benefit therefrom.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinayak Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 September, 2010

6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that a clear finding is given by the Ld. CIT(A) that it is noted that expenses regarding part of expenditure of Rs.3,80,690/- is for replacement of wooden planks, racks, hardware & paints and miscellaneous expenses and the same are incurred every year because the wooden planks and racks are worn out and are to be changed periodically. Regarding the balance amount of expenditure of Rs.6,84,254/-, finding is given by the Ld. CIT(A) that by incurring these expenditure for making partition wall in the cold storage 3 I.T.A.No.3125 /Ahd/2010 building, there is no addition to the installed capacity and this partition is only for operating convenience so that as and when goods are to be taken out, relevant chamber can be operated keeping other chambers closed so that there is no loss of electricity as the potatoes are to be preserved at a specific temperature. On the basis of these facts, finding is given by Ld. CIT(A) that the partition has been added to increase the efficiency of cold storage and for easy operation, which lead to saving electricity to the assessee and increase efficiency of the business. Ld. CIT(A) has applied the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Lt. Vs CIT 200 ITR 544 and also another judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Empire Jute Co. Vs CIT 124 ITR 01 and deleted the disallowance on the basis that the assessee has not brought into existence a new asset because the assessee has simply constructed the partition wall in the storage place, which in itself cannot be an independent asset in the nature of assessee's business. Nothing has been brought on record by the Ld. D.R. to controvert the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Fortune Investments, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 May, 2013

8. Regarding the first issue, it is an undisputed fact that the interest is earned from the bank by the assessee on the excess and unutilized funds lying with the bank. There is no systematic activity involved in earning of the said income. No interest expenditure was incurred by the assessee in this regard. It is also evident from the fact that the assessee has not lent any money for earning of the interest income on the investment in a systematic or professional manner. In fact, the balance sheet reflects only investments in mutual funds and nothing else. The other investments in the properties, which is not claimed as a part of the investment and leasing relates to the property related transactions. Admittedly, these investments in Mutual Funds or advances in properties are anyway is not the source of impugned income to the assessee. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the AO (i) judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Rajasthan Land Development Co. vs. CIT; (ii) M/s. National Coop. sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (Punjab & Haryan High court) and (iii) M/s. United Liner Agencies Ltd vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) are relevant to the facts of the present issue in favour of the Revenue is rightly relied upon by the AO. Therefore, we dismiss the arguments of the assessee on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next