Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L.G. Balakrishnan And Bros. (P.) Ltd. on 15 September, 1973

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Seshasayee Paper And Boards Ltd. on 19 April, 1984

In CIT v. Balakrishnan and Bros.(P.) Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 284, a Division Bench of this court of which one of us was a party considered a case, where the assessee had borrowed various amounts for the purchase of machinery for setting up a factory and had paid interest on those borrowings during the relevant assessment year. A question arose as to whether the assessee is entitled to claim capitalisation of the amount paid by way of interest. This court held that the interest paid on the amounts borrowed for the purchase of machinery had rightly been capitalised as part of the cost of the machinery and that the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation and development rebate on this amount also. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, points out that but for the borrowing of the funds from the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation and the Export and Import Bank of Washington, the amount could not have been invested and, therefore, the interest paid on those amounts should be taken to be an expenditure which should be allowed as deduction from the interest received as it had invested the amounts borrowed.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sabari Mills Private Ltd. on 26 November, 1975

Subsequently, the Supreme Court also, in the decision reported in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , approved the ratio of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 799 (Cal) and this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. L. G. Balakrishnan & Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 284 (Mad). The Supreme Court held that--See [1975] 98 ITR 167, 175 :
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Manaklal Porwal on 5 February, 1986

Even in CIT v. L.G. Ramamurlhi's case [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad), it was observed that a different finding could not be reached in the absence of fresh material. This shows that fresh material may warrant a different finding. In that case, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the matter was not viewed earlier in the proper perspective and there was no fresh material. So it can be said that when there is fresh material produced by the assessee warranting a different conclusion, then previous findings can be departed from although the broader proposition is that in assessment proceedings, the previous findings are generally not binding and conclusive both on the assessee as well as on the Revenue. It may be that on the fresh material, the same conclusion can be arrived at which was arrived at earlier but a different conclusion can also be arrived at if the material is such which may warrant a different conclusion, then that would be essentially a finding of fact and such finding of fact cannot be interfered with either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court. In our opinion, on the basis of the additional evidence, the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal was justified in law in having arrived at the conclusion to which it has arrived and such a finding of fact, in our opinion, is not in any way vitiated. Neither can it be said to be perverse nor can it be said to be based on any irrelevant consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Jct Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 8 October, 2004

The apex Court while rendering the decision in Challapalli Sugars (supra), had observed that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Challapalli Sugars Ltd. did not lay down the law correctly while affirming the contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. (now Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) (1966) 61 ITR 799 (Cal), which was decided along with Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) followed by the Madras High Court in CIT v. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document

Kashiram Ramgopal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 2 March, 1987

11. Similar is the view taken by the Madras High Court in CIT v. L. G. Balkrishnan & Bros. (P) Ltd. (1974) 95 ITR 284 (Mad) holding that the interest paid on the amount borrowed for the purpose of machinery had rightly been capitalised as part of the cost of the machinery and the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessees claim for depreciation and development rebate on this amount also. This was also a case of starting a new business.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next