Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (2.74 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) ... on 16 September, 1976

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

The basis of the rectification order is the decision in CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (I) Ltd. which, as noticed earlier, has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 and when the basis upon which the rectification was done is no longer available, it follows that the rectified order cannot also be sustained. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary to render any answer with reference to the first question, as that question does not really survive for consideration in the light of the answer given to the second question referred to us. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to answer the first question and return the reference unanswered in so far as it relates to the first question. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs English Electric Company Ltd. on 13 December, 1979

20. The matter cannot be said to be free from difficulty. The Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decisions of this court in CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India] Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 386 and CIT v. Lucas-T.V.S. Ltd. (No. 2)[1977] 110 ITR 346 and also of the Kerala High Court in Indian Transformers Ltd. v, CIT [1972] 86 ITR 192. All those decisions were concerned with the brought forward losses, unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate relating to the same business. The Mysore decision was concerned with the adjustment of loss from an activity which did not enjoy the benefit of Section 80E.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mangal Tirth Estates Ltd on 29 November, 2007

36. The said decision of the Apex Court was applied by the Bombay High Court in the decision reported in 260 ITR 102 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LTD.). It is seen from the facts in the said decision that the assessee therein issued debentures redeemable after five years. As per the agreement, the upfront payment of interest immediately on allotment was shown in its financial statement as deferred expenditure. The assessee, however, had the benefit of the said sum to the business over the period of time. The Bombay High Court held that the liability, hence, was to be spread over a period of the debentures. In so holding, it applied the decision of the Apex Court and applied the matching principles by taking the view that in order to determine the net income of the accounting year under the mercantile system of accounting, the revenue and other incomes are matched with the cost of resources consumed. It held "Ordinarily, revenue expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred." However, in a given case like the present one, the facts may justify an assessing officer to spread the expenditure over the life of the debentures, because, allowing the entire expenditure in one year may give a distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. The High Court held that it was a continuing benefit of the business over the entire period and hence, the liability was required to be spread over the period of debentures.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Gautam Sarabhai on 25 September, 1980

"In construing this provision, the Supreme Court held that in computing the profits of the assessee for the purpose of the special deduction provided under the above provision, items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate carried forward from earlier years will have to be deducted before arriving at the figure from which the 8 per cent. contemplated by the above provision is to be deducted. The Supreme Court did not approve of a decision of this court in CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 386."
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 16 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Belliss And Morcom (I.) Ltd. on 18 February, 1981

18. For the reasons we have mentioned hereinbefore, we are, however, unable to accept this view with great respect to the Gujarat High Court. We may also point out that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had also occasion to express a view different from that of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) Ltd.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 13 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Orient Paper Mills Ltd. on 18 March, 1981

29. In the view we have taken, it is also not necessary, in our opinion, to deal with the numerous other decisions which had considered this aspect. We may incidentally refer to the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of CIT v. Balanoor Tea and Rubber Co. Ltd. [1974] 93 ITR 115 as well as the decision in the case of Indian Transformers Ltd. v. CIT and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Amul Transmission Line Hardware Pvt. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 771 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) Ltd. .
Calcutta High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 12 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lucas-T.V.S. Ltd. (No. 2) on 24 November, 1976

In view of our earlier judgment, referred to above, it has to be proceeded on the basis that the unabsorbed development rebate also will stand on the same footing as the unabsorbed losses because Section 33(2)(ii) actually provides for the unabsorbed development rebate being set off against the profits in each of the succeeding years to the extent profits are available for a period of eight years. Consequently, the unabsorbed development rebate stands on the same footing as unabsorbed losses for the purpose of Section 80E and, therefore, the reasoning which we have given for not deducting unabsorbed losses in the case already referred to will apply to the case of unabsorbed development rebate also. However, Mr. Jayaraman, the learned counsel for the department, very strongly distinguished the case of unabsorbed depreciation from the case of; the other two amounts. According to the learned counsel, Section 32, Sub-section (2), made it clear that the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years will be treated as the depreciation to be allowed in the succeeding year and consequently it will stand on the same footing as the depreciation to be allowed for the current year and so long as the depreciation from the current year is allowed for calculating the profits and gains, the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years also should be similarly adjusted. We are unable to accept this argument. Section 32(1) deals with the allowance for depreciation. Section 32(2) says :
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K. Al. Kr. Ramaswami Chettiar on 17 February, 1978

4. The opening words " where the gross total income of an assessee not being a company includes any income chargeable under the head ' Capital gains' relating to capital assets other than short term capital assets " would clearly mean that in applying Section 80T, one has to take the income chargeable under the head " capital gains " relating to capital assets. The "capital gains" relating to capital assets in the case under consideration would be Rs. 1,28,344 and not Rs. 51,694 as taken by the ITO. A similar provision, viz., Section 80E, came up for construction before this court in CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 386. Section 80E provides for deduction in respect of the profits and gains from the specified industries. In the case of a company to which that section applies, where the total income included any profits and gains attributable to the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things specified in the list in the Fifth Schedule, deduction has to be allowed from such profits and gains of an amount equal to eight per cent, thereof, in computing the total income of the assessee-company. The contention in that case was that this 8% should be applied on the sum of Rs. 2,45,431 being the profit from the scheduled industry. The ITO, however, adjusted the carried forward loss which was liable to be set off under Section 72 of the Act and found that the assessee was not entitled to any deduction at all as there was no positive income in the relevant year to which Section 80E could apply. This court negatived the contention and held that so long as the total income as computed in accordance with the other provisions of the Act included any profits and gains attributable to the priority industries, the assessee would be entitled to a rebate of 8% on the said profits and gains attributable to such priority industries and that the question of set-off would come in only subsequently. We consider that the same principle applies to the construction of Section 80T also as the two provisions are substantially similar in language.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next