Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Malayala Manorama & Co. Ltd. on 22 October, 1982

Income-Tax Officer vs K. S. Lokhandwala on 22 September, 1989

5.5 Regarding the contention of the learned D.R. that the amount of sales tax for the last quarter was rightly disallowed in view of Supreme Court judgments in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. (supra) and Sinclair Murray & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), it will be sufficient to observe that in both those cases the assessee disputed their liability before the sales tax authorities and they did not deposit the amount of sales tax realised by them in the state exchequer nor refunded the same to the customers. Provisions of Section 43B as discussed before have been introduced only for providing disallowance of such amount of sales tax liability, which is not discharged by the taxpayers or which is not deposited by them for a long time. In the present case the assessee has duly deposited the amount of sales tax of last quarter within the time allowed as per the provisions of Gujarat Sales Tax Act and hence the assessee's case is not covered by the main provisions of Section 43B but the same is apparently covered by the exceptions carved out by the Legislature itself in the first proviso to Section 43B which permits grant of deduction of such sales tax liability provided the same has been deposited before the due date for furnishing the return of income Under Section 139(1).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 4 November, 1986

6. Regarding Notification 187/83 Shri Jain urged that the Notification was prospective and cannot be invoked by the appellants. He relied on 1983 (143) ITR 29 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala-I v. Malayala Manorama & Co. Ltd.). The Notification 75/67 would not apply to this case because the trough would fall under TI 26 AA, while the ingots would come under TI 26. As the finished products and the raw-materials did not fall under the same item, the benefit of the Notification could not be availed of. Notification 17/71 would not apply because it referred to iron and steel products manufactured from duty paid ingots. The disputed products, according to Shri Jain, is hot rolled strips, as these were sheets taken out from the salvage by the contractor. They were not used for re-melting as ingots, but to serve as a protective plate. There is no evidence to show that it was a mere scrap. It was for the protection of the ingot moulds. The ultimate use of the trough is not material.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.V.S. Raju vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 October, 1983

7. I agree with the conclusion of my learned brother, stating therein that the Board circulars are merely binding on the ITO and the Commissioner to the extent the same are concerning their administrative and not judicial functions or function. The Hon'ble High Court's decisions, which are binding on the Tribunal, have also held otherwise than that are of my learned brother. The Kerala High Court also did likely. Reliance can be placed on the cases of CIT v. Malayala Manorama & Co. Ltd. [1983] 143 ITR 29 (Ker.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1