Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Kanam Latex Industries (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 9 June, 1993

Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ms. Richa Chadha on 5 April, 2005

Thus, worker includes a person, who is not only in manufacturing process but also in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for manufacturing or in any kind of work incidental to or connected with manufacturing process. Further, it is not necessary that ten or more workers should be employed through out the year. What is necessary is that there should be substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 80IA (2)(v). If for most of the period for which manufacturing process continued, the assessee has employed more than ten workers, may be in the main manufacturing process and / or in subsidiary process relating thereto, then, it is a substantial compliance of the provisions. This view is supported by ITAT, Cochin in Kanan Latex Industries (P) Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 465/Cochin/84 reported in 29 TTJ 507.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Season Rubbers Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 August, 1997

9. In the last ground in this appeal the Revenue is aggrieved on granting investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act. The assessee- company is carrying on business in centrifuging rubber latex. The AO had disallowed the claim of investment allowance on the view that the assessee does not qualify as an industrial'company. The CIT(A) decided the matter in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kanam Latex Industries (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1987) 29 M (Coch) 507.. (1987) 22 ITD 355 (Coch).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Season Rubbers Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Also ... on 6 August, 1997

9. In the last ground in this appeal the Revenue is aggrieved on granting investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act. The assessee-company is carrying on business in centrifuging rubber latex. The AO had disallowed the claim of investment allowance on the view that the assessee does not qualify as an industrial company. The CIT(A) decided the matter in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kanam Latex Industries (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1987) 29 TTJ (Coch) 507 : (1987) 22 ITD 355 (Coch).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1