Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vikas Nigam ... on 7 November, 2003

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajasthan Financial Corporation on 5 October, 2007

The Orissa High-Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation of Orissa has followed the decisions given in the cases of CIT v. Bihar State Financial Corporation , CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation , CIT v. M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the decision given in the case of Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. CIT was not followed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Asian Business Conection Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit - 1(1) , Bhopal on 25 September, 2019

52. We however in the given facts and circumstances of the case as well as on observing that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd V/s CIT (supra), Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd V/s CIT 100 Asian Business Connection Private Limited ITA No.936/Ind/2018 (supra) as well as in the case of CIT V/s Kodak India Ltd (supra) has consistently held that the "fees paid to the registrar for expansion of the capital base of the company is directly related to the capital expenditure incurred by the company and although incidentally that would certainly help in the business of the company and may also help in profit making, it still retained the character of a capital expenditure since the expenditure was directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company, Therefore the amount paid to the ROC as filing fee for enhancement of capital, was not a revenue expenditure".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... on 11 November, 2014

17. Even otherwise we find that the issue in question, the effect of Section 36(1)(viii), viz. deduction claimed under Section 80M in view of Section 80AA stands examined by different High Courts with the question raised being decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The first decision is that of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of ITA No. 127/2002 Page 10 of 12 Income Tax versus Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vikas Nigam Limited, (2005) 274 ITR 625 wherein reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Madras in CIT versus Chemical Holdings Limited, (2001) 249 ITR 540 and the decision of the High Court of Bombay in CIT versus Maganlal Chhaganlal Private Limited, (1999) 236 ITR 456, observing that Section 80AA only stipulated income by way of dividends included in the gross total income and it was inapposite to state that deductions under section 80M should take place after deducting the sum allowable under section 36(1)(viii). The deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) should be computed with reference to the income by way of dividends as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The relevant words were "before making any deduction under this Chapter and not with reference to gross amount of such dividends". Examining the aforesaid provisions, the courts had observed that the provisions did not support the submission of the Revenue.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - S Khanna - Full Document
1