Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 140 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mir Mohd. Ali, Bus Owner, Vellore on 24 April, 1964

Shri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 18 August, 1976

We have already extracted the portion of the order of the Tribunal dealing with the submission made on behalf of the revenue which referred to the audit note. That audit note itself in its turn is stated to have specifically referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165. While referring to that case the audit note itself would appear to have pointed out that that decision would not be applicable to the present case because that decision dealt with additional depreciation and the present case dealt and development rebate and that notwithstanding that the audit note would appear to have suggested that the withdrawal of the development rebate in the instant case might kindly be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 August, 1976

21. We have already extracted the portion of the order of the Tribunal dealing with the submission, made on behalf of the revenue which referred to the audit note. That audit note itself in its turn is stated to have specifically referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165. While referring to that case the audit note itself would appear to have pointed out that that decision would not be applicable to the present case because that decision dealt with additional depreciation and the present case dealt with development rebate and that notwithstanding that the audit note would appear to have suggested that the withdrawal of the development rebate in the instant case might kindly be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Unknown vs 05-06-2015

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali, the Supreme Court explained that the expression "installed" in the second paragraph of Clause (vi) and Clause (via), did not necessarily mean "fixed in position" but was also used in the sense of induct or introduce or placing an apparatus in position for service or use. Where an engine was fixed in a vehicle it was installed within the meaning of the expression in Clauses (vi) and (via) of Section 10(2) of the Act. The word "installed" must carry the same sense in Clause (vib) of Section 10(2) of the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - M S Rao - Full Document

Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd vs West Bengal Industrial Development ... on 19 May, 2011

In CIT Vs. Mir Mohammad Ali (Supra) the Supreme Court decided whether an assessee who is a bus owner and transport operator owning a fleet of buses, replaces in the account year relevant to the assessment year 1950-51 the petrol engines in two of his motor buses by new diesel engines, he is entitled to extra depreciation admissible under Section 10(2)(vi) and 10(via) of the Act. in deciding the said question the Supreme Court held that the word 'machinery' when used in ordinary language prima facie, means some mechanical contrivances which, by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances, by the combined movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. Prima facie the ordinary meaning of the word machinery - and the word machinery is an ordinary and not a technical word - must, unless there is something in the context, prevail in Income-tax Act also. According to this definition, a diesel engine is clearly machinery.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1979

The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165, on which strong reliance was placed by Sri P. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revenue, is not relevant on this aspect as it applies to the case of development rebate under Section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. It has no application to the case on hand although it was held therein that the new diesel engine substituted for the worn-out petrol engine in a motor vehicle was held to be " machinery ".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lko. vs S/S Anand Tyres, Jhokhan Bag, Jhansi on 5 February, 2015

27. The Gujarat High Court also, followed the above interpretation of the term "machinery" by Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (supra) and Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Mir Mohammad Ali (supra) in Rashmi Enterprises Vs. State of Gujarat, 1993(91) STC 295.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next