Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.42 seconds)

M/S.Tube Investments Of India Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 March, 2014

The learned counsel appearing of the assessee would contend that the only capital goods imported during 1995-96, is to a value of Rs.3,41,42,000/-, and during the current year was Rs.3,59,73,000/-, in all Rs.7,01,15,000/- and in such circumstances, the entire amount cannot be capitalized as per the provisions of Section 43A of the Act. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was trying to explain away his claim by way of an alternative arguments and it would be rather strange for the assessee to avail a foreign exchange loan and place such funds in intercorporate deposits and other investments and this stand was clearly contrary to the purpose for which the assessee applied for permission to the RBI and the purpose for which, the foreign exchange loan was approved by the RBI. After noticing the accounting policy of the assessee as spelt out in the printed balance sheet in Schedule 14 which stated that exchange difference arising from foreign currency transactions are dealt with in profit and loss account or capitalized, where they relate to fixed assets and plant and machinery acquired through foreign currency loans are capitalized at rate prevalent at the time of purchase, the Assessing Officer took note of the Director's report which pointed out that substantial modernization and expansion was made during the earlier year and the current year, construction work in respect of the export oriented unit was in progress and the trial production was expected to commence during June 1997 and full scale stabilization was expected by the end of 1996-97. Further, the assessee had commissioned its new tube plant at Shirwal, Maharashtra. As already pointed out in the notes to the accounts in paragraph 12 that capital work-in-progress includes exchange fluctuation of Rs.736.01 lakhs and interest Rs.35.50 lakhs and the increase in rupee liability on account of outstanding foreign currency loan utilized in respect of acquisition of plant and machinery based on the exchange rate applicable on the date of balance sheet is Rs.537.58 lakhs including capital work in progress. After taking into consideration, the total value of the imported machinery, the Assessing Officer held that it has to be capitalized as per Section 43A of the Act following the decision in the case of CIT vs. ELGI Rubber Products Ltd, (supra).

Shri C. Raman Reddy vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 25 July, 2003

The Court held that the High Court is not an appellate court. It was therefore, submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT has no jurisdiction to go into the legality or otherwise of search operation. It can interfere when the panchanama is invalid (by ignoring such panchanama) or when no search at all has taken place. Other proceedings U/s 132 (including 132 (3) proceedings) cannot be gone into. Advertising to decision of the Madras High Court decision in CIT Vs. Elgi equipments (242 ITR 461) it was agreed that it lays down that acts of lower authorities, beyond the statute can be struck down. However the search wing is not a lower authority, which is a party to the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. hence, the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court does not apply to the issue on hand. Further, the decision of the Madras High Court was on the issue that the statutory authorities should not give affect to Board Circulars which are opposed to the provisions of statute. Section 255(6) lays down that the Hon'ble ITAT has the powers vested in the Income Tax Authorities (U/s 131). This does not lay down the scope of the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 102 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 August, 1997

In CIT v. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 109, the Madras High Court again took the same view and held that devaluation of currency had a far-reaching effect on the price of machinery etc., purchased from a foreign country. It often increased the originally agreed price. If such increase is between the dates of the agreement and the acquisition of asset, the case is covered under Section 43(1) of the Act and the escalation in price would go to increase the actual cost.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 22 - A Bhan - Full Document
1   2 Next