Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Burmah-Shell Oil Storage And ... on 8 June, 1977

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Assam Gas Company Ltd., Dibrugarh on 31 July, 2019

In, one of the case laws relied upon by assessee, i.e. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributions Co. of India (Supra), assessee was distributing petroleum gas for cooking purposes. Petroleum gas was supplied by a refinery. The company purchased cylinders and those gas-filled cylinders were given to consumers and the same were returned as and when the gas in the cylinder got exhausted. Gas was not produced by assessee. In that case, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amrit Bottlers (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 January, 1994

In support of the claim that it was entitled to 100% deduction, the assessee-company placed reliance upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. (Bombay) [1978] 115 ITR 891 and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 1. On the ground that the assessee was not able to substantiate by filing the details the claim for breakages, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of Rs. 7,12,311. However, the Income-tax Officer allowed 10% of the empty bottles and 25% of the wooden crates as breakages and allowed only Rs. 2,58,000 out of the claim of Rs. 7,12,311.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M.P. Udyog Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 December, 1987

In fact, only a part of difference was incorporated in the question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that at this stage we cannot re-open or review those issues. Even assuming that there is any point which was pleaded or argued before the Appellate Tribunal which remained to be dealt with, it would have to be deemed that plea or argument had been considered and dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal. For this proposition, we may refer to the decision as in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC), CIT v. Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. of India Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 891 (Cal.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 69 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mahamaya Dassi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 February, 1978

16. Our attention was also drawn on behalf of the assessee to the observations of this court in the case of CIT v. Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. (Bombay [1978] 115 ITR 891. There, this court observed that under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the High Court had no power to entertain a new or an independent question of law which the Commissioner in his application for reference had not called for the Tribunal to refer to the High Court. The said observation was made in an entirely different context.
Calcutta High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 18 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Oil India Ltd. on 13 June, 1991

11. Questions Nos. 4 and 5 are covered by the judgment of this court in the case of the same assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 387 of 1981--CIT v. Oil India Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 366. The said reference was disposed of on July 4, 1989, by Ajit Kumar Sengupta and B. P. Banerjee JJ. Following the decision of the Division Bench on the said question, we answer questions Nos. 4 and 5 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amrit Bottlers (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer. on 20 January, 1994

In support of the claim that it was entitled to 100% deduction, the assessee-company placed reliance upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. of India Ltd. (Bombay) (1978) 115 ITR 891 (Cal) and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). On the ground that the assessee was not able to substantiate by filling the details the claim for breakages, the ITO disallowed the claim of Rs. 7,12,311. However, the ITO allowed 10% of the empty bottles and 25% of the wooden crates as breakages and allowed only Rs. 2,58,000 out of claim of Rs. 7,12,311.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Pabbati Shankaraiah And Ors. on 22 April, 1983

In CIT v. Burmah - Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. , the assessee-company was a distributor of petroleum products including gas for cooking. The gas was supplied to the company by a refinery and the company had purchased many specially made cylinders for the purpose of distributing gas to the customers. The customers returned the cylinders to the company after the gas was exhausted and they were refilled again and supplied to the customers. No revenue expenditure or depreciation on the cylinders was claimed or allowed in the past years' assessments. The company sold the cylinders to the refinery in the accounting year for Rs. 82,19,947 against their original cost of Rs. 1,09,63,754. The refinery continued to supply gas in those very cylinders to the company and the company, in its turn, distributed them to the consumers. The company claimed before the ITO that those cylinders were "returnable packages" within the meaning of that expression used in Item M(2)(2)(d)(1) of Part I of the Depreciation Schedule, App. 1 of r. 5 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. It also claimed that it had incurred a loss of Rs. 27,43,807 on the sale of those cylinders and that this loss should be allowed as a deduction either under the aforesaid item or under s. 32(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO did not allow the claim.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 41 - Cited by 10 - M J Rao - Full Document
1