Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 499 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Lohia Machines Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 January, 1985

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Plastic Dela Footwear. on 11 May, 1988

There is thus no basis to hold that the assessee is entitled to relief in respect of the sum of Rs. 6,08,147 even according to the Supreme Court decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308. It follows that the Tribunals view in respect of the entire above-quoted question No. 1 in the assessees favour cannot be upheld, being contrary to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Plastic Dela Footwear on 11 May, 1988

There is thus no basis to hold that the assessee is entitled to relief in respect of the sum of Rs. 6,08,147/- even according to the Supreme Court decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. UOI (supra). It follows that the Tribunal's view in respect of the entire above quoted question No. 1 in the assessee's favour cannot be upheld, being contrary to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J S Verma - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Warren Tea Ltd. And Ors. on 15 January, 2004

35. Dr. Pal relied on the decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) in order to assail the retrospectivity of the amendment inserting Sub-section (4B). According to him, the majority judgment of the five Judges' Bench did not deal with the question of retrospectivity. Therefore, the minority decision by Hon'ble A.N. Sen, J., dealing with the question of retrospectivity would be binding. We need not go into this question in view of the discussion we have made hereinbefore and the finding that the amendment has not introduced anything new but had clarified the situation already in existence.
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 11 - D K Seth - Full Document

Bal Krishna Binani vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 22 July, 1991

30. The subsequent legislative development has also to be taken as a guideline for deciding the question of the vires of the rule. The self-same break-up method has been subsequently incorporated in the main legislation by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989. Schedule III of the Act now forms part of the main legislation containing the rules for determining the value of assets and Rule 11, Part C, of the said Schedule elevates it as part of the statute what was the erstwhile Rule 1D which is challenged before us. We may usefully refer to the decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308. The enactment of the break-up method as a legislative measure for valuing unquoted equity shares rings down the curtain on the question of excess of the rule makers in framing Rule 1D. The subsequent enactment by Parliament of break-up method as the statutory one only clarifies that Rule 1D did not suffer from any vice of excess of or disharmony with the legislative intent nor any infirmity otherwise. It cannot be said that Parliament has validated an invalid rule.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 12 June, 1998

After considering the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court on the point, A.N. Sen J., held in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308 (SC) that the power and competence of Parliament to amend any statutory provision with retrospective effect cannot be doubted but any retrospective amendment to be valid must, however, be reasonable and not arbitrary and must not be violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. His Lordship further held that the mere fact that any statutory provision has been amended with retrospective effect does not by itself make the amendment unreasonable and the unreasonableness or arbitrariness of any such amendment with retrospective effect has necessarily to be judged on the merits of the amendment in the light of the facts and circumstances under which such amendment is made. His Lordship also observed that in considering the question as to whether the legislative power to amend a provision with retrospective operation has been reasonably exercised or not, it becomes relevant to enquire as to how the retrospective effect of the amendment operates.
Gauhati High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 10 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. on 3 December, 1985

We do so. Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 9/Coch/1979 has to be answered, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308 (SC), in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We do so. Question No. 2 in R. A. No. 9/Coch/1979 has to be read without the word "losses" appearing after the words "earlier years". The question as to losses does not arise from the order of the Tribunal.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs India Radiators Ltd. on 22 August, 1994

5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that borrowed capital should also be included for the purpose of granting relief under section 80J of the Act is not correct. It was further pointed out that in view of the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court and also in view of the amendment brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 with effect from April 1, 1972, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that borrowed capital should also be taken as capital for the purpose of granting relief under section 80J for the assessment years under consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Mehatpur Filling Station And Anr. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 16 December, 1998

15. The learned counsel for the petitioners drawing inspiration from the decision reported in [1967] 20 STC 367 (SC) (Sales Tax Officer v. K.I. Abraham) and [1985] 152 ITR 308 (SC) (Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India), contended that a statutory provision in the Act which enabled the rule-making authority to prescribe the manner in which a declaration has to be filed cannot be construed to enable or empower the rule-making authority to prescribe any time-limit within which the declaration could be filed. The apex Court was construing in the said decision the expression "in the prescribed manner" occurring in Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. So far as the case on hand is concerned the said reasoning cannot be successfully invoked to challenge the prescription made in the Rules to file the returns or pay the tax within the stipulated time. Section 5A enabled the rule-making authority to prescribe as to the manner in which as also the intervals at which the tax payable under the Act shall be paid. Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 also enables the rule-making authority to make rules for recovery of the tax leviable under Section 3, including the fixing of the time when the tax is to be paid. Likewise, Clause (c) of the said provision also enables the rule-making authority, by rules imposing on the dealers the duty of furnishing returns and of keeping records and registers of stocks and daily sales, etc., etc., and the manner in which they have to be verified and "all such other conditions thereof as may be necessary and prescribing a period within which such returns must be submitted". These provisions, in our view, are sufficient in law to confer upon the rule-making authority the required power to prescribe a limit within which the return is to be submitted and tax is to be paid, unlike the provision which fell for the consideration of the apex Court in a decision relied upon for the petitioners. Consequently, the challenge to the period of limitation prescribed within which the returns have to be submitted or the tax has to be paid cannot merit our acceptance. If the rules to that extent stipulating the time-limit within which the returns have to be submitted and tax has to be paid are held valid, the levy of penalty or the collection of interest for non-compliance or omission made, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 5-A(5) or Section 5-C becomes inevitable.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - D Raju - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next