Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam on 30 November, 2000

Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions ... vs Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust- Shirdi Ay ... on 8 October, 2024

34. We are in agreement with Mr. Ganesh when he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam3 wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court overlooked the cardinal principle, that it is, the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and a decision on facts which fell for consideration of the Tribunal, cannot be gone into by the High Court, except when a question has been referred to it that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such, which could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted which read thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions ... vs Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust- Shirdi - ... on 8 October, 2024

34. We are in agreement with Mr. Ganesh when he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam3 wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court overlooked the cardinal principle, that it is, the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and a decision on facts which fell for consideration of the Tribunal, cannot be gone into by the High Court, except when a question has been referred to it that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such, which could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted which read thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Foseco India Ltd., Mumbai vs Assessee on 6 April, 2009

11. We do not see any reason to distinguish the expenditure involved in Headquarters and the expenditure involved in two units at Jamshedpur and Jammu. Since all the three expenditures incurred by the assessee being part of the same restructuring and assessee's business continued in later years with increased turnover and profit, we are of the view that on the same principles considered by the CIT(A) while allowing the Headquarters expenditure is also applicable to the other expenditure. Moreover, the facts are exactly similar to the decision considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. CIT 247 ITR 178. In view of this we are of the view that the assessee has correctly claimed the expenditure as 11 ITA No. 4667/M/2005 M/s. Foseco India Limited revenue and accordingly, the same is directed to be allowed. Assessee's ground is considered allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Cir-12, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Linde India Ltd. , Kolkata on 3 May, 2017

In my view the facts of the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 178 (SC) relied upon by the appellant are similar to those of the appellant's case. In that case, where the assessee, processing cashewnats in ten units, closed some of the units in the wake of labour disputes, and carried on the business in the remaining units, the expenditure incurred under a settlement with the trade union representing the workers was allowable as business expenditure, since it was incurred in connection with the industrial health of the business as a whole.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions ... vs Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust- Shirdi - ... on 8 October, 2024

34. We are in agreement with Mr. Ganesh when he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam3 wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court overlooked the cardinal principle, that it is, the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and a decision on facts which fell for consideration of the Tribunal, cannot be gone into by the High Court, except when a question has been referred to it that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such, which could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted which read thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Coramandel Industries Pvt Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 27 November, 2009

9. Since its inception in 1964, the assessee has been carrying on the business in the same line of automobile industry. The assessee had carried on two branches; one branch to provide technical knowhow and the other branch to manufacture automobile components. It is to be seen that both the above activities are of the same nature and relating to the same industry. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it is to be seen that both the activities were carried on by the assessee as a single :- 6 -: ITA 181/10 business and for all practical purposes its only customer is Wheels India Ltd. Consultancy is something different from manufacturing. Therefore, by virtue of the nature of the functions, those two activities are to be treated as two units. But at the same time, those two units are carried on by the assessee as a single business. In such circumstances, when the manufacturing unit is closed down and expenses incurred have resulted in loss, it should be set off against the income arising to the assessee from its running business of providing consultancy services. Therefore, we find that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the assessee in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (247 ITR 178) is applicable to the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Abbot Laboratories (India) Ltd. on 30 December, 2005

In the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (supra), the assessee had closed 4 units out of 10 units run by it due to labour problems. On 21-11-1970, the assessee entered into a settlement with the trade unions and agreed to pay them for the period of services up to the date of lock out. Accordingly, payment of Rs. 4,18,107 made which was claimed as deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The said claim was disallowed by Assessing Officer but the Tribunal allowed the claim of assessee after recording a finding that all the ten units constituted the same business. High Court did not agree with the view of the Tribunal which resulted in further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and affirmed the view of the Tribunal by observing as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs Cit on 18 June, 2004

In K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 178 (SC), the Apex Court had occasion to hold that the ten units run by the assessee constituted a single business, that the four units in Kerala did not constitute a separate business and that, therefore, the payment that was made was not on account of closure of business, and as such would be allowable under section 37. It had recorded that the Tribunal had found that there was unity of control and management. For the purpose of continuing the business the assessee had to reduce the number of units from ten to six. Any incidental expense in reducing those units was an expenditure incurred in the course of conducting the business bona fide and allowable under section 37. It was further held that the Tribunal is the ultimate fact-finding authority and therefore on the basis of the finding the question has to be answered.
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - D K Seth - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next