Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. on 19 January, 1978

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Loyal Textile Mills Ltd on 20 January, 2006

4. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the issues involved in the questions 1 and 2 raised in the above two appeals are covered by the decision of this Court rendered in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JANAKIRAM MILLS LTD. (275 ITR 40 3), third question is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WHEELS INDIA LTD. (275 ITR 319 ) and the fourth question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SRIPUR PAPER MILLS LTD.(112 ITR 776).
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Loyal Textile Mills Ltd on 20 January, 2006

4. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the issues involved in the questions 1 and 2 raised in the above two appeals are covered by the decision of this Court rendered in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JANAKIRAM MILLS LTD. (275 ITR 40 3), third question is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WHEELS INDIA LTD. (275 ITR 319 ) and the fourth question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SRIPUR PAPER MILLS LTD.(112 ITR 776).
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Weizmann Homes Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 30 October, 2003

10. It is also necessary at this stage to notice as to whether the norms are absolutely necessary for the purpose of approval in terms of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills (supra) has considered the scope of providing deduction in terms of the IT Act. The Court was considering the norms in these matters. The Supreme Court while considering somewhat similar Notification dt. 21st Oct., 1995, has ruled that the condition of 80 per cent of the amount actually paid by the employer can be allowed as deduction in terms of the second condition, The supreme Court ruled that :
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Gururajan - Full Document

M/S Eci Engineering And Construction ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 November, 2014

He also followed the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., 334 ITR 656 and CIT-II vs. Inventa Chemicals ITA.No.186 of 2013. Revenue has preferred appeal only on the advances written off stating that advances are not petty whereas, that was major amount ranging upto Rs. 6 lakhs in the case of single party.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

E.I.D. Parry Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 October, 1996

8. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (supra). According to the facts arising in that case, the building, plant and machinery belonging to the respondent, were covered by the insurance against loss by fire. They were partly damaged by fire and the respondent received a sum of Rs. 9,41,070 as compensation in respect of the loss. The respondent spent only a sum of Rs. 1,57,813 and restored the building, plant and machinery to working condition. The question was, whether the balance of Rs. 7,03,207 was assessable to tax either as a revenue receipt nor under s. 41(2) of the IT Act. While answering this question, the Supreme Court held that since the plant and machinery was only partly damaged by fire and after repairing the damage, the plant and machinery was recommissioned there was no scope for the applicability of s. 41(2). In the absence of specific provision in the Act, the amount received by the respondent in respect of damage to the plant and machinery could not be brought to tax and the Revenue could not seek to tax the amount by resorting to the analogy of s. 41(2). This decision was cited by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee in order to support his contention that the compensation received in the present case should also be considered as capital nature. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Department pointed out that in cited supra, the compensation was paid for the loss of a part of building, plant and machinery. Therefore, the compensation would be in the nature of capital. But to the present case the above said decision would render no assistance to the assessee, since compensation was not paid for loss of capital goods.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ganesh Dass And Sons (P) Ltd. on 15 March, 2005

In the case of CIT v. Sirpur Papers Mills (supra), the apex Court has held that if certain plant and machinery or building has been destroyed in full, then in that event alone the provisions of Section 41(2) would be attracted and if the result of the fire is less than the total destruction and the building is repaired and brought to its original state and working is again started in the factory, it would not fall under the term 'destroyed' for the purpose of Section 41(2) of the Act. Same would be the position with regard to the machinery also. Applying the principles laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present, we find that according to the own case of the respondent/assessee, which is duly supported by the surveyor's report and relied by the Tribunal, the entire building and machinery installed in the second, third and fourth floor of the respondent's mill had been completely destroyed and reduced to scrap. Thus, the amount of compensation referable to the plant and machinery installed on these floors would clearly attract the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next