Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Deepak Nitrite Ltd. on 23 June, 1998

M/S Mindtree Ltd , Bangalore vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltu , ... on 29 March, 2019

He submitted a copy of this judgment and pointed out that in para no. 23 of this judgment, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has duly considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (supra) and also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1918/2009, order dated 17.08.2011 and also the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. as reported in [2016] 74 taxmann.com 163 and it was held that both these judgments are operating in different category. As per this Para no. 23 of this judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was held that if there is mere provision for bad and doubtful debts, after the insertion of clause (i) of the explanation to section 115JB, the same has to be added back for computing book profit u/s. 115JB but this was not a mere provision made by the assessee and if it was reduced from loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet, then it will amount to write off of bad debts and in that situation, it will be a second category for which no addition is justified u/s. 115JB. He submitted that in the present case also, since the assessee has reduced the provision for bad and doubtful debts from the trade receivables, it falls in the second category and therefore, the same cannot be added back to book profit.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Naman Associates on 24 July, 2020

(1) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Deepak Nitrite Limited reported in (2001) 247 ITR 362 (GUJ), it was contended that this Court while considering the ambit and scope of the powers under Section 256 of the Act, 1961 after considering the various decision of the Supreme Court has held as under :­ "31. From the decisions referred to above, in our opinion, the legal position seems to be fairly well­settled. But a pure finding of fact based on evidence cannot be made the subject­matter of reference to the High Court. Likewise, an Page 25 of 37 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 23 21:25:12 IST 2021 C/TAXAP/1180/2006 CAV JUDGMENT inference of fact, drawn from findings of fact also remains a question of fact and cannot be challenged before the High Court. But a pure question of law, unrelated to the facts, can always be challenged and the High Court can examine such a question in the exercise of its jurisdiction u/s.256. On mixed question of fact and law, whereas the finding of the Tribunal on facts found has to be treated as final, the legal effect of such finding is a question of law and can be reviewed by the High Court. Likewise, a finding on a question of fact is open to challenge if there is no evidence to support such finding or the finding is perverse or is such as could not have been arrived at by a reasonable man on the facts and in the circumstances of the case."
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 March, 2001

11. The learned senior Departmental Representative relied on judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Deepak Nitrite Ltd. (supra). In that case the assessee-company claimed deduction of expenses incurred on foreign tour of some officials. It was admitted on behalf of the assessee that the foreign tours were undertaken to see whether a plant for manufacture of ammonia could be established in India, for which the foreign travelling expenditure was incurred. On these facts, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the CIT(A) rightly held that assessee was not entitled to deduction. The facts of this case are also clearly distinguishable with the facts of assessee's case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Core Health Care Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 June, 2000

23. The learned senior Departmental Representative drew my attention to section 35D of the Act relating to amortization of preliminary expenses. Such preliminary expenses include expenses incurred before the commencement of business as well as expenses incurred after the commencement of business, in connection with the expansion of industrial undertaking or in connection with setting up of a new industrial unit. Shri Gupta wanted to draw an inference from the language of section 35D that wherever legislature so intended, they have introduced a specific provision in relation to grant of deduction in respect of such capital expenditure. The expenses incurred in relation to extention or expansion of existing business are part of capital expenditure known as preliminary expenses'. But for section 35D, no deduction will be allowable. Shri Gupta submitted that expenditure relating to extention/expansion of the existing business prior to the period when such assets are put to use are part of the capital expenditure. Such a view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the decisions in CIT v. Ambica Mills Ltd. (1990) 236 ITR 921 (Guj) and CIT v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 362 (Guj).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 144 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation ... vs Dy. Cit on 16 March, 2001

11. The learned senior Departmental Representative relied on judgment of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Deepak Nitrite Ltd. (supra). In that case, the assessee-company claimed deduction of expenses incurred on foreign tour of some officials. It was admitted on behalf of the assessee that the foreign tours were undertaken to see, whether a plant for manufacture of ammonia could be established in India, for which the foreign travelling expenditure was incurred. On these facts, the Honble Gujarat High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that assessee was not entitled to deduction. The facts of this case are also clearly distinguishable with the facts of assessees case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 August, 2000

6.2. After careful consideration of the matter, we are inclined to uphold the disallowance made by the AO. The basic test to be applied for ascertaining the nature of the expenditure whether capital or revenue, has already been elucidated by us while adjudicating ground No. 2 above relating to deduction of technical knowhow fees. Similar principles would apply for ascertaining whether expenses incurred for obtaining the feasibility study report for setting up the captive power plant are capital or revenue in nature. The expenditure in question is obviously connected with the capital structure of the assessee-company. The profit-earning apparatus of the company would be augmented by setting up captive power plant by the assessee. The captive power plant would obviously be capital asset for the purposes of assessee's business and the expenditure for obtaining the feasibility study report, which is inextricably linked with the setting up of the power project, is thus clearly in the capital field. The decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. (2000) 108 Taxman 479 (Guj) cited by the learned Departmental Representative directly supports the case of the Revenue. In the said case the assessee had decided to instal its own plant to produce adequate ammonia gas for its own captive use. Foreign tour expenses to study the feasibility of acquiring such a plant were held to be capital expenditure by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court inter alia, on the ground that the expenditure was undertaken with the purpose and object of creating a capital asset.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 63 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next