Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1989

Lubrizol India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 March, 1990

18. The Gauhati High Court in Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 126, of course, held to the contrary. However, with respect to that High Court, we find it difficult to follow their decision, the reason is simple. The only argument that appears to have been advanced on behalf of the Revenue in that case was that, as there was no specific provision in of the Revenue in the Income-tax Act providing for deduction in respect of surtax liability, surtax liability could not be allowed as deduction. This contention was held to be and rightly not tenable as a number of other taxes, cesses and levies about which there was no specific provision for deduction in the Act were held deductible by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 31 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Infor (India) Private Limited , ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 6 October, 2021

7. We may mention that all the High Courts in the country except the Gauhati High Court have taken the view which we have taken herein. Only the Gauhati High Court has taken a contrary view in the decisions in Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 453 (Gau) and Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 126 (Gau) . The decision of the Gauhati High Court in Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. is under appeal before us in Civil Appeal Nos. 3976-77 of 1995. Similarly Civil Appeal No. 3246 of 1995 is preferred against the decision of the Gauhati High Court following the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd.. (On enquiry, the office has informed that no Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal has been filed against the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Co. (Ltd.). For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid decisions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hindustan Milk Food Mfrs. Ltd. on 30 November, 2004

That the assessee's claim was bona fide is further confirmed from the decisions of the Gauhati High Court in the cases of Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 453 (Gau) and in the case of Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) WO ITR 126 (Gau), where the Gauhati High Court held that surtax liability is deductible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Since the claim was made in a bona fide manner to keep alive its legal claim and the assessee was still in litigation before the Supreme Court, therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on this ground could not be levied as the assessee had not concealed any facts nor it has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. It had made a bona fide claim based on judicial pronouncements.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. on 20 April, 1993

20. The next point to be considered as to what order should be passed on the merits of the additional ground. The papers filed before us show that the assessee has submitted a return of chargeable profits under the Surtax Act on 28-12-1987. This primafacie establishes that the assessee is liable to pay surtax. It cannot be a gainsaid that the liability is a statutory liability. However, we do not know and no materials were placed before us to show whether any assessment has been made under the Surtax Act and what is the ultimate or eventual liability of the assessee. We, therefore, consider that the proper order to be passed in this case is to remand the claim to the file of the Assessing Officer who will ascertain the exact amount of surtax liability and apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. 's case (supra) regarding the allowability of the claim.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Orissa Cement Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 5 November, 1992

(15) With respect we are unable to agree with the aforesaid observations of the Gauhati High Court. The Judges have not analysed the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 in any detail and have apparently overlooked the definition of the expression "chargeable profits" occurring in Section 2(5) of Sur-tax Act, 1964 which clearly stales that the chargeable profits mean the total income computed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 subject to adjustments being made under the First Schedule. No doubt the charging section states that tax is to be levied on chargeable profits but then chargeable profits are no different than the total income computed under the provisions of Section 28 and 37 of the Income-tax Act but subject to adjustments under the First Schedule. The question as to whether the payment could be claimed as a deduction under Section 37 came up for consideration before the Gauhati High Court in the case of Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax ., 180 lTR 126(19). After "referring to various cases it was observed that Sur-tax was different from Income-tax in all attributes and perspectives and "Sur-tax was paid by the assessed in the install case under the compulsion of the statute for running: the business of tea, and. therefore, ban to be allowed to be deducted under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act."
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 37 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Smith Kline & French [India] Ltd.Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 April, 1996

We may mention that all the High Courts in the country except the Gauhati High Court have taken the view which we have taken herein. Only the Gauhati High Court has taken a contrary view in the decisions in Makum Tea company [India] Limited & Anr.V. Commissioner of Income Tax [178 I.T.R.453] and Doom Dooma Tea Company Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [180 I.T.R.126]. tax. The decision of the Gauhati High Court in Mukum Tea Company [India] Limited is under appeal before us in Civil Appeal Nos. 3976-77 of 1995. Similarly Civil Appeal No.3246 of 1995 is preferred against the decision of the Gauhati High Court following the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Company Limited. (On enuiry, the office has informed that no Special Leave petition/Civil Appeal has been filed against the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Company Limited.) For the aforesaid reasons, we can not agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 63 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Smith Kline & French [India] Ltd.Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 April, 1996

We may mention that all the High Courts in the country except the Gauhati High Court have taken the view which we have taken herein. Only the Gauhati High Court has taken a contrary view in the decisions in Makum Tea company [India] Limited & Anr.V. Commissioner of Income Tax [178 I.T.R.453] and Doom Dooma Tea Company Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [180 I.T.R.126]. tax. The decision of the Gauhati High Court in Mukum Tea Company [India] Limited is under appeal before us in Civil Appeal Nos. 3976-77 of 1995. Similarly Civil Appeal No.3246 of 1995 is preferred against the decision of the Gauhati High Court following the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Company Limited. (On enuiry, the office has informed that no Special Leave petition/Civil Appeal has been filed against the decision in Doom Dooma Tea Company Limited.) For the aforesaid reasons, we can not agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next