Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing E.I.D. Parry Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 March, 1988

M.C. Muthanna vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 January, 1989

In the view we have taken that the question as referred is comprehensive enough to permit consideration of the character, for purposes of the Act, of the interest received by the assessee, it is unnecessary to refer to the decision in E.I.D. Parry Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 11 (Mad) as that decision may not apply having regard to the terms in which the question referred has been counched in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.Ct.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on 13 February, 1996

3. By way of preliminary objection, learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to refer question No. 2, which was not sought to b referred by the Department. According to learned standing counsel, the Tribunal has already decided that there is a transfer according to the facts arising in this case and, therefore, no question need be referred raising the issue whether there is a transfer or not in the case of the assessee. Learned standing counsel, in order to support his case that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to refer the question which was not sought for, relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in E. I. D. Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 11 (Mad). In the abovesaid decision, this Court held that the Tribunal was not competent to refer suo motu the question as to whether the surplus amounts in question were taxable as revenue receipts inasmuch as the Department had not sought for reference on that question which was decided against them. It remains to be seen that whenever any party is aggrieved over an order passed by the Tribunal, it is open to such aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court. Whether the question is to be referred or not is purely within the realm of the Tribunal. What kind of question is to be referred and in what manner it is to be framed is also purely the concern of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Department has filed a reference application requesting the Tribunal to refer the first question which, according to the Department, relates to exemption contemplated under s. 47(vii) of the Act. Where the assessee succeeded in an appeal before the Tribunal, it is open to the assessee to suggest a question in the reference application filed by the Department questioning some of the findings given by the Tribunal in the appeal. In such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to refer a question which is not suggested by the Department. According to the Department, the question whether there was a transfer in the case of the assessee was already decided in the appeal and, therefore, the Department was not aggrieved over that part of the order. Therefore, it is the case of the Department that the Tribunal ought not to have referred the second question for the opinion of this Court, even though it arises out of the order of the Tribunal. According to us, even the first question as framed and referred by the Tribunal relates to the grant of exemption under s. 47(vii), the correctness of which cannot be tested without going into the question whether there is any transfer in the case of the assessee. Therefore, even if question No. 2 is out of context, while answering question No. 1, it is for the Court to find out whether the disputed item is chargeable to tax and then only it has got to be considered whether any exemption can be granted under the relevant provisions. It is on this background, we are proceeding to answer the questions referred to us, even though, according to learned standing counsel, the second question cannot be taken into consideration in the matter of expressing our opinion.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S.George Maijo & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 September, 2002

12. In this connection, we would also like to mention that there were two transactions and the Appellate Tribunal held that as regards one transaction the loss was allowable in the hands of the assessee and in the case of other transaction, which is subject matter of the present tax case reference, the Tribunal held that the loss did not accrue in the previous year. The Appellate Tribunal independently went into the question and decided that the loss is that of the assessee and the United Exports acted only as an agent. Since the finding of the Appellate Tribunal has not been challenged by filing an independent reference application requesting the Tribunal to refer the question, in the absence of any question before us, it is not open to the learned counsel for the Revenue to urge the point. This Court in E.I.D. PARRY LIMITED v. C.I.T. (174 ITR 11) has held that the Tribunal was not competent to refer a question suo motu and there must be an application either oral or written before the Tribunal. On the facts of the case, we find that there was neither an oral request, nor a written application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also not referred a question as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue. In the absence of any application or reference by the Tribunal, we hold that it is not open to the learned counsel for the Revenue to raise such a point in the reference at the instance of the assessee. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the plea of the learned counsel for the Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

M/S.Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 5 June, 2018

In our considered view, reliance placed on the decision of this Court in the case of E.I.D.Parry (India) Ltd., (supra) and the Kerala High Court in the case of Malabar & Pioneer Hosiery (P) Ltd. (supra) is of little avail, as in both cases, it was for a new project, in contra distinction with the factual position in the case on hand. Therefore, those decisions are factually distinguishable.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1