Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Tarun Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. on 1 April, 1976

Dcit, Jaipur vs Agribiotech Industries Limited, ... on 31 July, 2017

revenue. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Limited (supra), Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT, Gujarat Vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). In view of the above facts and circumstances and the case laws, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Keystone Valves (I) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 27 March, 1997

2. Before us, Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate, the learned counsel for the assessee while relying upon the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. 1977 CTR (Guj) 141 submitted that the provisions of s. 40A(5) are of general nature applicable to employees while the provisions of s. 40(c) are applicable to the Director(s) of a company and therefore, special provisions of s. 40(c) alone will be applicable in the case of directors of the company and not that of s. 40A(5). He, therefore, submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition by applying the provisions of s. 40A(5) in the case of Shri S. K. Behal, managing director of the assessee-company.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kiran Crimpers on 4 December, 1996

The other decision which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee is CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein this Court has held that air-conditioners is to be treated a plant and not an office appliance. As we have already noticed there is no dispute before, nor it is the case of the Revenue that air-conditioners are not plant or machinery at all. Therefore, we are unable to see how this case advances the case of the assessee in any manner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 August, 2003

10. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the record and gone through the decisions cited by the learned authorised representative. The word 'plant' includes apparatus or instruments used by a businessman in carrying on his business. In determining whether an article is a plant the enquiry must be as to what operation it performs in assessee's is business and whether it will fulfill the functions of a plant. It is the contention of the assessee that the building of the assessee accommodated all the technical personnel entrusted with job of drawing, designing and engineering etc. which aids and assists the manufacturing process of the assessee-company. The finding of the CIT(A) is that electrical installation are routine type of fittings, After considering the totality of the facts of the case we find that the controversy under consideration is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. (supra). Some facts and figures involved in this ground are subject to verification. Under the circumstances we send back this issue to the file of the AO to decide the allowability of depreciation in accordance with the above judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Keystone Valves (I) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 March, 1997

2. Before us, Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate, the learned counsel for the assessee while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. submitted that the provisions of s. 40A(5) are of general nature applicable to employees while the provisions of s. 40(c) are applicable to the Director(s) of a company and therefore, special provisions of s. 40(c) alone will be applicable in the case of directors of the company and not that of s. 40A(5). He, therefore, submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition by applying the provisions of s. 40A(5) in the case of Shri S. K. Behal, managing director of the assessee-company.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next