Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 97 (0.06 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 July, 1967

Braithwaite And Co. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 September, 1973

Mr. Bajoria has also relied on the decision of this court in the case of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 33 ITR 579 (Cal). Relying on the aforesaid decisions Mr. Bajoria contends that in construing the word "reserve" the ordinary dictionary meaning should be given to the said word and by giving the ordinary dictionary meaning to the expression "reserve" these items should certainly be held to constitute "reserve". Mr. Bajoria has very fairly submitted that if the ordinary meaning is not given to the word "reserve" but if the said word is construed with reference to the provisions in the company law or the principles of commercial accountancy, the items claimed in the instant case cannot be considered to be "reserve" but they will in that case become "provisions". It is, however, Mr. Bajoria's contention that the Supreme Court has deliberately chosen not to give to the word "reserve" the meaning in which it is understood in company law or in commercial accountancy but the Supreme Court has held that the said word should receive the ordinary dictionary meaning. Mr. Bajoria contends that in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court these items which may be otherwise considered to be provisions on the principles of commercial accountancy or under the provisions of the Companies Act and they may be so understood by business, but for the purpose of this particular statute these items should constitute reserve and the assessee, on the said footing that these items constitute reserves, should be entitled to get the benefit of these items in the computation of its capital, Mr. Bajoria has also referred to the following decisions :
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A N Sen - Full Document

Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 September, 1975

With respect to the contention of the assessee that the surplus/excess provision has to be treated as a reserve, we have already indicated that, on the facts and in the circumstances before us, the said question does not arise and even if it is held to arise, we are of the opinion that merely because the amount of balance from the previous year has been "simply pushed forward to the next year", borrowing the language of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1955] 27 ITR 436 (Cal), it cannot be said that it constitutes a reserve unless some person possessed of the requisite authority had designated it as such or indicated the manner of the disposal or the destination of the balance concerned.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Indian Trading Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 February, 1995

The case relied upon by Mr. Talukdar in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 379 (Cal), was a case where the assessee claimed the deduction in respect of Rs. 1,50,000 paid to the Indian National Congress, it was allowed by the Income-tax Officer, but pending an appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as regards other matters, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to include the aforesaid sum which he had allowed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed this claim and the Tribunal agreed with him. On a reference, the High -Court held that on the facts of the case the contribution to the Indian National Congress was not an expenditure incurred wholly or exclusively for earning the profits within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it was not an allowable deduction.
Gauhati High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.V. Srinivasan vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 22 June, 1983

In Indian Steel Wire Product v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 579 (Cal), the nature of the advance tax paid was considered and it has been observed that advance payments of tax made under s. 18A of the I.T. Act are payments on account, made under compulsion of a statute towards the discharge of an instant liability for liquidating a charge, the precise measure of which is to be determined at later date, that such payments cannot be regarded as payments made by way of creating a reserve, that the disposting power of the company over the moneys paid as advance tax is completely and irretrievably lost and that, therefore, it is not possibly to say that the moneys paid and advance tax are still lying as a part of the company's reserve.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Eicher Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 May, 2002

Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC) and Indian Oxygen Ltd. (supra) on identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, have been compared. There as nothing on record especially in the agreement dt. 4th Oct., 1982, to suggest that the assessee had acquired the know-how including drawing etc. from MMC as an absolute owner. There is a difference between a licensee and an owner since in the case of licensee, there does not occur absolute transfer of interest of seller to thee purchaser in an item whereas in the case of ownership there always is absolute transfer of interest of seller in item to the purchaser. The Hon'ble Courts in the aforesaid cases relied on by the learned authorised representative have gone in detail on the issue while deciding it in favour of the assessee discussing, all the possible aspects of the facts in view of Sections 35A and 37(1) of the IT Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 102 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Duncan Brothers And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 December, 1975

Mr. Bajoria has also relied on the decision of this court in the case of Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 33 ITR 579 (Cal). Relying on the aforesaid decisions Mr. Bajoria contends that in construing the word 'reserve' the ordinary dictionary meaning should be given to the said word and by giving the ordinary dictionary meaning to the expression 'reserve', these items should certainly be held to constitute 'reserve'. Mr. Bajoria has very fairly submitted that if the ordinary meaning is not given to the word ' reserve ' but if the said word is construed with reference to the provisions in the company law or the principles of commercial accountancy, the items claimed in the instant case cannot be considered to be 'reserve' but they will in that caee become 'provisions'. It is, however, Mr. Bajoria's contention that the Supreme Court has deliberately chosen not to give to the word 'reserve' the meaning in which it is understood in company law or in commercial accountancy but the Supreme Court has held that the said word should receive the ordinary dictionary meaning. Mr. Bajoria con- tends that in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court these items which may be otherwise considered to be provisions on the principles of commercial accountancy or under the provisions of the Companies Act and they may be so understood by businessmen, but for the purpose of this particular statute these items should constitute reserve....."
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Haryana ... vs Krishna Copper Steel Rolling ... on 12 November, 1991

Sri Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, contends that, in the steel making industry, the manufacture of ingots, billets, blooms, etc. represents only an intermediate stage at which the iron and steel metal becomes semi-finished steel. The semi-finished steel is converted into plates, bars or rods which are described as "finished steels. According to him, the bars, rods and rounds continue to be iron and steel_ m a finished form. It is only finished steel that is subsequently used to manufac- ture, by various processes such as rolling, cutting, shear- ing, forging, hammering and so on into various kinds of products, which can be described as products of iron and steel in contrast with 'iron and steel (metal)', the item covered under the relevant entry of the schedules. He also draws our attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Aluminium Co. v. CIT, (1980) 122 I.T.R. 550 where, while following the earlier decision in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT, (1977)108 I.T.R. 802, the court observed that there is really no divergence in view between the Calcutta and Kerala views and that the real question for consideration in each case is whether the articles in ques- tion constitute finished products and represent articles of iron and steel or merely represent the raw material viz. iron and steel (metal) in a different form and shape. On the other hand, Dr. Gauri Shankar, learned counsel for the Department, submits that iron and steel ceases to be a metal when it comes out of the furnace in the primary steel mills in the form of ingots. At the best, the next stage at which the ingots become semi-finished products in the shape of billets, blooms and slabs may also be said only to convert the raw material into a different form or shape. But, he says, by no stretch of imagination can the next stage during which the billets, blooms and slabs are heated/and passed through various types of mills enumerated earlier be considered as involving not any manufacture but only a conversion of the raw material into other forms or other shapes. According to the learned counsel, the expres- sion "iron and steel (metal)" only comprehends the iron and steel as it emerges in the form of billets, blooms and slabs from the steel mills and that all subsequent products wheth- er in the form of 199 rails, rods (including wire rods), bars, angles, channels, tees, zees, pipes, tubes, sheets, strips, plates and coils turned out by the various other types of mills would consti- tute articles made of iron and steel. He also invited our attention to a clarification by the Central Board of Taxes, in response to a query from the Federation of Indian Cham- bers of Commerce and Industry, that "rolling mills making bars and rods are not covered by item 1 of the Fifth Sched- ule".
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next