Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 443 (2.59 seconds)
Documents citing Challapalli Sugar Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. ... on 31 October, 1974

Core Health Care Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 June, 2000

In order to understand the ratio of the decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case, with a view to see how far the said ratio is in harmony with the ratio of the above referred decision of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd.'s case, it would be necessary to state shortly the facts relating to that decision. There the assessee was a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 144 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Core Health Care Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 6 June, 2000

In order to understand the ratio of the decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case, the with a view to see how far the said ratio is in harmony with the ratio of the above referred decision of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd.'s case, it would be necessary to state shortly the facts relating to that decision. There the assessee was a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 143 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Autokast Ltd. on 10 July, 1996

19. After hearing learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue and counsel for the assessee, we have been pointed to the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167. We have also been taken through the other decisions and justifiably in view of the Tribunal finding the situation of a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion. In our judgment, the spirit of Article 141 of the Constitution of India takes us straight to consider the decision of the Supreme Court to appreciate as to what is the declaration of law of the apex court in the context. This is more so because on going through the other decisions, we find a distinct advantage to go through the decision of the apex court with greater seriousness, care and sincerity. In the context we feel that it is really necessary.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Assam Plantation Crops Development ... on 31 May, 1996

Neither the accountancy principle laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India nor the reasoning contained in the decision of Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) and of this Court in Nagarjuna Steels case (supra) would merit the acceptance of the assessees contention in this behalf.... However, in our view, the last sentence in paragraph 8.2 shall not be read in isolation but in the context of and in conjunction with the preceding sentences. If so read, it is doubtful whether the Research Committee of the Chartered Accountants of India meant to lay down a broad proposition that every receipt of interest during the pre-production period should be linked with interest payment so as to be reflected in the actual capital cost of the assets. The above passage at paragraph 8.2 can be better understood by referring to the Summary of Conclusions recorded at paragraph 17.11 of the same booklet which reads as follows :
Gauhati High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N S Singh - Full Document

Indital Tintoria Ltd., vs Assessee on 12 September, 2014

operative expenses is not in question. This being so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has clearly held that all the expenditure incurred by the assessee prior to commencement of production are to be capitalized on accepted accountancy norms and the cost of fixed assets will include all the expenditure necessary to bring such assets 19 ITA No.881/JP/2006 Indital Tintoria Ltd. vs. DCIT , Alwar into existence and to put them in working conditions. There is no issue on capitalization. The depreciation is to be allowed as per prescribed rate on the cost of the assets. We see no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Since we have allowed ground No. 3 and 4 of the assessee which is a question of consequent depreciation, therefore, the issue on depreciation has rightly been decided by the ld. CIT(A). Thus the Ground No. 3 and 4 of the Revenue are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swaraj Engines Ltd. vs J.C.I.T., Spl. Range-1 on 29 June, 2005

" It was contended for the revenue that, since during the relevant account years, the unit at Bangalore had not started production, the payment of interest on the borrowing which was utilised for the purpose of establishing that new unit should go towards the cost of the new unit and therefore on the principle accepted by the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax this interest should be treated as a capital expenditure and not as a revenue expenditure. This contention was not correct.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Core Healthcare Ltd. on 25 April, 2001

This case too is of no assistance to the Revenue. The appellant-company in that case at the time it raised the loan was a running concern. Unlike the assessees in the present appeals, the loan raised by the appellant-company in the cited case was not before the commencement of production but at a later stage. The question of including the interest paid on the loan before the commencement of business in the actual cost of the plant did not arise in that case'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next