Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Soft Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs Second Income-Tax Officer on 12 June, 1979

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L.S. Mills (P.) Ltd. on 27 March, 1997

Ltd. v. Second ITO [1969] 71 ITR 260. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, a Nil return does not come under section 139(10) and if the Department has not passed a valid order on the valid return filed by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to carry forward of depreciation and investment allowance. It is stated by the ld. counsel that the assessee has filed application under section 154 against the lodging of return under section 139(10).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Sri Krishna Tiles And Potteries ... on 10 April, 1981

13. The case of the intervener is slightly different. This intervener has not made any provision in the accounts for the assessment year 1973-74, which is the first year of statutory liability. Even though no such provision was made for the assessment year 1973-74, the intervener claimed in the course of assessment proceedings, a deduction of certain amount arrived at by multiplying the number of employees by their monthly salary and by the actual number of years of service, which is almost equal to initial contribution as statutory liability. The case of the intervener is that Section 40A(7), which prohibits the deduction of provision, is not a bar because the intervener has not made any provision in the accounts, but claims deduction only as a statutory liability. Two Benches of the Tribunal had held such a view as indicated by the intervener. But the Madras Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Soft Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. Second ITO [1982] 1 SOT 311 held that Section 40A(7) prohibits even statutory liability from being claimed as a deduction even if no provision is made in the accounts. The intervener is aggrieved by the Special Bench decision and requests us to take a view different from the said Special Bench decision. The argument of the intervener is that the statutory liability should be allowed as a deduction under Section 28 of the Act. The intervener also argued that in the case of this assessee in this departmental appeal, the question of provision in accounts can be ignored and deduction can be allowed as a statutory liability under Section 28.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1