Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing A.P.V. Engineering Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 June, 1978

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karam Chand Thapar And Brothers on 15 May, 1980

16. We have set out in extenso the ratio of the said decision as well as the facts with which the said decision was concerned because we note that in a subsequent decision, viz., in the case of A. P. V. Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT , another Division Bench of this court had observed at pp. 950-951, that to the extent the observations made by us in the decision in the case of CIT v. Burn and Co. Ltd. , to which we shall presently refer, were in conflict with the decision in the case of Braithwaite and Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 729, those should be treated as obiter.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation ... on 2 March, 1981

Reliance was placed on some of the decisions including in the case of CIT v. Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. , the decision in the case of CIT v. Eyre Smelting Pvt. Ltd. and the decision in the case of A. P. V. Engineering Co. v. CIT . According to the learned advocate for the Revenue, the Tribunal had found that the contingency reserve fund was meant for capital liability and, therefore, this showed that the amount in question was not a reserve under the S.P.T. Act, 1963.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 18 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 27 November, 1980

Moreover, as pointed out by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.P.V. Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 937, the said Act, namely, the SPT Act, 1963, was meant to apply only to companies and not to other categories of assessee. The object of the said Act was to impose a tax on a certain part of the commercial profits of joint stock companies. It would be more appropriate to construe the words and expressions in such a statute according to their commercial and not by their dictionary meaning. Even according to the dictionary, one of the basic tests of a reserve is that it is set apart for a future use. Making a provision for a known liability appears to be a use of the fund in prescient and not in future. It would be unrealistic to treat an amount earmarked for the payments of a known liability to be something set apart for future use. In any event, such an amount cannot be treated as part of the capital of the assessee-company employed in the business. As pointed out by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the decision of the Supreme Court in Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 499, was not based solely upon the ordinary or dictionary meaning of the expression "reserve". The Supreme Court considered the relevant provisions of the Indian companies Act, 1913, referred to s. 131 and regln. 99 thereof and came to the conclusion that the item in dispute was not a reserve as understood in the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It was not necessary for the Supreme Court in that case to further distinguish between the concepts "provision" and "reserve" inasmuch as not controversy had arisen on that point. In that case also, in fact, provision had been made by the directors for depreciation and taxation before there was a recommendation for dividend and such provisions had not been claimed to be "reserves".
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next