Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madras Cements Ltd. on 2 February, 1977

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 October, 1998

30. In the case of Addl. CIT vs. Madras Cement Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that "the dictionary meaning of the word "plant" comprehends buildings employed in carrying on trade or other industrial business and hence the special reinforced concrete foundation for the purpose of locating or installing the rotary kiln in the assessee's factory would come within the scope of the expression "plant" and would be entitled to depreciation and development rebate.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 October, 1998

30. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Madras Cement Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that "the dictionary meaning of the word "plant" comprehends buildings employed in carrying on trade or other industrial business and hence the special reinforced concrete foundation for the purpose of locating or installing the rotary kiln in the assessee's factory would come within the scope of the expression "planC and would be entitled to depreciation and development rebate.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Shivalik Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 April, 1995

The Madras High Court has in the case of Addl CIT v. Madras Cements Ltd. [ 1977] 110ITR 281 also held the same view while examining the definition of "plant" in Section 43(3). It has been observed in that case that the expression "plant" has to be construed in the context of particular kind of trade or manufacture. The dictionary meaning of the word "plant" apprehends buildings employed in carrying on trade or the other industrial business. Special reinforced concrete foundation for the purpose of locating or installing the rotary kiln in the factory was, therefore, held to be "plant".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Parakh Foods (P.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 December, 1992

He has contended that the last paragraph from page 466 in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. 's case (supra) supports his case and he has further urged that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. (supra) supports this case. He has also pointed out a commentary from Kanga & Palkhiwala. 8th Edition on Income-tax and relied on the said commentary wherein it is commented that how the factory building becomes the integral part of the plant and machinery.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs R.G. Ispat Ltd. on 9 December, 1993

6. Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Madras Cements Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 281, wherein it was observed that the expression "plant" has to be construed in the context of the particular kind of trade or manufacture carried on by the assessee and if in the context it could be taken as "plant" as understood in the popular sense it would be eligible for the allowance of depreciation and development rebate.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. on 15 March, 1983

17. In Addl. CIT v. Madras Cements Ltd. , the question whether special reinforced foundations constructed at a cost of over Rs. 2 lakhs constituted an item of "plant" and machinery and the depreciation and development rebate should be allowed thereon on that basis came up for consideration before the Madras High Court. The assessee was in the business of manufacture of cement. The rotary machinery which was part of the production machinery was supported on a specially reinforced foundation which cost over Rs. 2 lakhs for laying. The court held that (at p. 281) :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 64 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

R.C. Chemical Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi on 15 May, 1981

11. In Addl. CIT v. Madras Cements Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 281, the Madras High Court has held that the special reinforced concrete foundation for the purpose of locating or installing the rotary kiln in the factory would come within the scope of the expression "plant" and be entitled to the development rebate. This was because it was found by the Tribunal that the special foundation was essential to keep the machines from going out of alignment, plumb, etc., causing unbalanced rotational and torsional oscillations and vibrations; thus the machinery foundation in combination with the machinery had to be construed as the mechanical contrivance.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 Next