Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. on 11 July, 1974

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs Addl.Cit, Coimbatore on 20 January, 2020

smooth operations and to avert strike. However, Memorandum of Settlement produced before us is dated 04.09.1977 which is in operation only till 31.12.1980 , while we are presently seized of ay: 2012-13. There is no finding of lower authorities as to whether this Memorandum of Settlement is still operative even in impugned ay. There is no finding/evidence on record to come to the said conclusion that the said memorandum of settlement still hold the field and these payments were made under the said memorandum of settlement . We are of considered view that the matter need to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and the assessee is directed to produce agreement/settlement with the employees which is valid and effective for year under consideration and based on that the AO shall adjudicate the matter afresh keeping in view the provisions of Sec.37(1), 36(1)(ii) and 43B of the 1961 Act and also ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., reported in 154 CTR 0182(Mad.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Fabwear Garments, Mumbai vs Assessee on 19 September, 1995

22. With respect to the advance given to the suppliers, we allow the same relying on the decision in the case of CIT Vs Lakshmi Mill Co. 135 ITR 203. The assessee has given advances to the suppliers namely mills who have to give the assessee raw materials for manufacturing garments. The non supply of material is in the course of assessee's business and is to be treated as a trading loss. Hence these grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd. on 14 February, 2005

In the case of CIT v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 81 (Mad), the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was a memorandum of settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the assessee and the trade union of the assessee. In the memorandum of settlement, it was mentioned that in addition to the bonus that is payable under the Bonus Act the assessee also agreed to pay certain additional amount shown in the annexure to the agreement. The Appellate Tribunal found that if the amount was not paid, the workers would have gone on strike and in such circumstances the payment of additional amount was regarded by the Tribunal as commercial expediency. In the case in hand there is no such finding nor material on record to show that the payment of Rs. 24,674 to the senior members of the staff was made, in anyway, due to commercial expediency. Thus the payment of Rs. 24,674 cannot be regarded as admissible expenditure under the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - P Krishna - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Smt. Kokilaben R. Chokshi on 3 January, 1991

It may be mentioned that in all the three cases the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) was considered and was dissented from. With great respect to their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court we feel inclined to follow the view expressed by the Madras, Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts in the cases referred to above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs I.O.L. Ltd. on 30 March, 1994

It is also observed that Madras High Court and Calcutta High Court have also dissented from contrary view expressed by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. [1974] 97ITR 285 wherein it was held that the word 'month' occurring in Section 271 (1)(a) must be taken to mean a period of 30 days. Section 271(1)(a) was enacted for the purpose of imposing a penalty on an assessee who has not filed his return within the prescribed time and its object was to serve as a deterrent for such lapses. Penalty is imposable for every month during which the default continues. The meaning ascribed to this word in the General Clauses Act, i.e., if the English Calendar month is adopted, it may in some cases lead to a defaulting assessee escaping penalty altogether.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next