Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (3.64 seconds)
Documents citing Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Calcutta. on 3 March, 1967

Modi Corp. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 March, 2006

In the case of Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision was dealing with a case of proceedings against amalgamating companies, which cease to exist. The facts in the said case were as follows. There were two companies carrying on business in Jaipur known as M/s Merchandise and Stores Ltd., and M/s Rajputana General Dealers Ltd. By an order dt. 22nd April, 1960, the Rajasthan High Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement bringing about the amalgamation of the above two companies with the Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Birla company"). As a result with effect from some date in June, 1960, when the order of Court dissolving the two companies were filed with the RoC, the two amalgamating companies stood dissolved without a winding up. For the asst. yr. 1960-61, M/s Merchandise and Stores Ltd., had been assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 1,45,143 and the Rajputana General Dealers Ltd., had been assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 1,14,417. Later on, the ITO found that the two companies had not declared any dividends and he was of opinion that proceedings had to be initiated against these companies under Section 23A of the Indian IT Act, 1922, for the asst. yr. 1960-61. He therefore, proceeded to issue notices in the names of the two companies and in reply thereto a chartered accountant appeared and objected to the proceedings on the merits. However, after hearing the representative who appeared, the ITO passed an order dt. 2nd March, 1965, in the case of M/s Merchandise and Stores Ltd., demanding an additional super-tax of Rs. 40,135 under Section 23A. On the same date, he similarly determined the additional super-tax payable by the other company, i.e., M/s Rajputana General Dealers Ltd., at Rs. 31,465. In both the orders, the names of the assessee were given as M/s Merchandise and Stores Ltd., and M/s Rajputana General Dealers Ltd., respectively. One of the questions for consideration before the Court was as to whether Delhi High Court was competent to hear the reference. The two Hon'ble Judges held that Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the reference. One of the Hon'ble Judges expressed the following opinion.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs K.B.H.M.D.H. Bhiwandiwalla & Co. on 17 December, 1968

21. The other case in Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax related to the expenses incurred by the assessee in making representations before the Income-tax Investigation Commission and also for challenging the validity of the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. It was held that as the expenditure was incurred by the assessee-company in opposing an illegal and coercive governmental action with the object of saving taxation and safeguarding the business it was justified by commercial expediency and was, therefore, allowable expenditure. It will thus be seen that the expenditure incurred in that case was to safeguard the business from coercive governmental action and saving it from being taxed. The expenditure incurred was for the purpose of the running of the business. In the case before us, however, the litigation undertaken by assessee was not for challenging the governmental action in canceling the licence, nor for challenging the Prohibition Act, which had the effect of causing a stoppage of its business, but for loss or damage on the basis of its business already having been stopped. In our opinion, therefore, this submission of Mr. Dwarkadas cannot be sustained.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 March, 2006

179. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Company (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) dealt with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills case (supra) and Mahalakshmi Mills case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Revenue in the context of admission of new plea for adjudication by the Tribunal for the first time.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 141 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Slocum Investment P. Ltd. (Now Known As ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 March, 2006

The Id. DR also brought to our notice that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CIT 123 ITR 354 (Del). The Madras High Court has pointed out that in the said judgment the Court held that it was not competent to hear the reference application and that jurisdiction lay only with the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. One of the Judges however expressed opinion on the validity of proceedings against a dissolved company. The opinion was not necessary to decide the controversy involved in the reference and for this reason the same should not be considered as good in law. In conclusion on this issue the Id. DR submitted that an assessment in the hands of the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income of M/s HCLCL and M/s SNIPL was valid and no three separate assessments need to be framed as contended by the Id. counsel for the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 128 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S. Elel Hotels And Investments Ltd., ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 4 December, 2018

5434/Del/2015; 5435/Del/2015 & 5058/Del/2015 "3.3 Of the above items, expenses on lease rent, auditors remuneration, personnel expenses, expenses on security of the property of the company, expenditure on power and water, travelling and communication, insurance and expenses on repairs and other incidentals are also essential for preserving and maintaining the hotel property owned by the appellant company are also bare minimum expenses required for maintaining the company and its assets. It was held in Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [64 ITR 568, 584 (Cal.)] that business includes day-to-day running of the business, preservation of business and protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or hostile title, payment of statutory dues and taxes and things incidental to carrying on business and expenses relating thereto were allowable business expenses. This ruling was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [82 ITR 166], I am also of the view that these expenses on security, electricity and water are outright consumables and cannot be capitalized as these expenses do not add any value to the capital asset.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ito Ward - 2(2), New Delhi vs All Check Deals India Pvt. Ltd., New ... on 24 November, 2022

The appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malyalam Plantation Ltd. 53 ITR 140, Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207, CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, 94 ITR 544 (SC), Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 64 ITR 568 (Calcutta), CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., 26 taxmann.com 133 (Delhi) in support of its contention that expenses incurred for the purposes of business has to be allowed. These judgments supports the argument of the appellant wherein it is held that expenditure incurred for carrying on business and to protect the interest of business has to be considered for the purposes of business notwithstanding that the said expenditure has not resulted in generating any income in the relevant year. The courts have also held that it is not open to the revenue authorities to prescribe what expenditure is to be incurred and in what circumstances and what proportion. Therefore, the AO was not correct in holding that such Page | 5 expenditure was not incurred for the purposes of business merely because the appellant's revenue during the relevant year had decreased as compared to the last year.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next