Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Janakiram Mills Ltd on 29 April, 2005

R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 May, 2016

Therefore in view of the decisions supra the assessee did not get any asset on payment of Rs.7,10,738/- nor create any separate product, as the Hon'ble High Court of Madras rightly held that plant and machinery put together amount to a complete spinning mill, in the same way in the present case also that the amount is paid for upgradation of application software to enable existing system to run efficiently and not for computer itself as whole, thus we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Southern Roadways Ltd reported in 288 ITR 15 (Mad) and CIT vs. Janakiram Mills Ltd in (2005) 275 ITR 403 (Mad) and order of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal supra are applicable to the facts of the case. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the ground no-3 raised by the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 May, 2012

8 I.T.A. Nos Nos. 219- 219-221, 981- 981-982/M/09 & I.T.A. Nos. 1458- 1458-1459/M/11 "In view of the decision rendered by the jurisdictional of High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jankiram Mills Ltd. (275 ITR 403) it is necessary to see the nature of repair undertaken by the Assesses, whether the expenditure was incurred in the capital field or revenue field. We find that the revenue authorities have not examined the'" issue in the right perspective. The admissibility of the claim is to be- examined on the touchstone of the guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jankiram Mills Ltd; supra"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.L.S.Mills Ltd on 8 February, 2006

6.2. The Supreme Court in the decision second cited supra viz., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JANAKIRAM MILLS LTD. (275 ITR 403), held that merely because the MODVAT credit was an irreversible credit available to manufacturers upon purchase of duty-paid raw materials, that would not amount to income which was liable to be taxed under the Act; income was not generated to the extent of the MODVAT credit on unconsumed raw material.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cit vs Fenner (India) Ltd. on 22 January, 2007

8. In the instant case also, the assessee had only replaced the auto coner and moulds without discontinuing their production activities and that there was no acquisition of any new asset, much less capital of any enduring advantage. A perusal of the orders of the authorities below shows that no claim for depreciation was ever made before any authorities either by the assessee or by the revenue to consider the question of block of assets nor was there any necessity to do so. Moreover, the department did not raise any objection before the Tribunal regarding the claim of allowance on the premise of the block of assets concept. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the decision cited supra, such question does not arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for considering the same by this Court under Section 260A of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sree Kaderi Ambal Mills Ltd on 14 November, 2007

6. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills, (2007) 294 ITR 328 set aside the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd., (2005) 275 ITR 403 without expressing any opinion on merits as to whether the expenditure incurred in replacement of the assets without increasing the production capacity would amount to revenue expenditure, on the ground that there was no material available on record to support the contention that the replacement of asset was without increasing the production capacity or expenditure for replacing the old machinery by new machinery, which constitutes an advantage of enduring nature and therefore the expenditure was capital in nature.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next