Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs Jt. Cit on 28 February, 2002

20 Micron Limited, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 30 January, 2013

A.Yr.. 2004-05 & 2005-06 losses cannot be doubted. He further relied on the decision in the case of Alfa Laval India Ltd. v/s. DCIT Bombay High Court (2004) 266 ITR 418 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court and reported at 294 ITR 451 He also passed order relying on the decision in the case of CIT VS. Bharat Commerce & Industries 240 ITR 256 (Del), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. CIT 260 ITR (IT) (Nag.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eastern Coalfilelds Ltd., vs Acit, Circle-2, Asansol, Asansol on 26 July, 2017

"After examining-the rival submissions, we are of the view that the point at issue need not detain us much since we have the benefit of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT reported in (2002) 260 ITR (AT) page 1 (Nagpur). The judgment in fact is a lengthy one and spans numerous pages of the report in question. In perusing the judgment we find that the facts are absolutely identical and the Nagpur Bench by a detailed discussion on facts as also the case law, allowed the entire claim, observing in the process, at page 66, as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Poonam Rani Singh vs Dy. Cit on 2 September, 2005

In that case the notice under section 148 was issued for the reasons that the deduction in respect of contribution made by the assessee to CPRA was wrongly allowed in the original assessment without the assessee filing any particulars or other details in respect of the same but in the assessment order addition on different items were made. The contention of the assessee in that case was that since no addition was made in reassessment order with respect to CPRA, the grounds for reopening of the assessment did not survive and the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings. On this basis, it was contended that the entire proceedings were without having valid jurisdiction. The contention of the learned Departmental Representative on the other hand was that once the case reopened in section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the full assessment was above to the assessing officer. The bench after considering the various authorities has ordered. Thus, the issue stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court referred to above and the decision in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 August, 2004

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that either the amount should have been apportioned over the years to which it related or it should have been debited in the P&L a/c in the year in which settlement reached. The learned Departmental Representative referred to p. 53 of the paper book wherein the memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the company and NLC Workers Progressive Union is contained. She pointed out that the said settlement was entered into on 29th June, 2001. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that nothing happened in asst. yr. 2001-02 and, therefore, it could not be allowed. She referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd- v. Jt. CIT (2002) 72 TTJ (Nag) 401 : (2003) 260 ITR 1 (Nag)(AT). In this case, the assessee-company had made a provision for interim relief payable to its employees covered by the National Coal Wage Agreement for the period 1st July, 1991 to 31st March, 1994 to the extent of Rs. 3,266 lakhs and amount payable to the employees covered by executives rules for the period 1st Jan., 1992 to 31st March, 1994 to the extent of Rs. 62.49 lakhs. The Tribunal held that as far as provision of Rs. 3,266 lakhs made by the assessee-company in respect of interim relief payable to the employees governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement was concerned, a letter was issued by the holding company, i.e. Coal India Ltd., on 11th Feb., 1994, which was carrying on the negotiations with the representing trade unions, intimating the assessee that amicable settlement between the parties had been arrived at, according to which Rs. 100 per month of interim relief to the employees covered by the National Coal Wage Agreement was payable w.e.f. 1st July, 1991. The Tribunal allowed this provision. However, in regard to the provision of Rs. 62.49 lakhs in respect of employees covered by executives rules for the period from 1st Jan., 1992 to 31st March, 1994, it noted that the negotiations with the concerned union reached the stage of settlement only after the end of the relevant accounting year vide letter intimating such settlement forwarded by Coal India Ltd., on 3rd May, 1994. Accordingly, it was held that it was not possible for the assessee-company to anticipate the liability to pay interim relief to this class of employees and that the provision was not warranted. The learned Departmental Representative thus submitted that the liability can be said to have accrued only when the final settlement was reached. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that strike notice was given after the end of accounting year and, therefore, it could not be said that liability had accrued in any case during the previous year 2001-02.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Acit, Circle-2, Asansol, Asansol vs M/S Eastern Coalfields Limited, ... on 16 January, 2019

"After examining-the rival submissions, we are of the view that the point at issue need not detain us much since we have the benefit of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT reported in (2002) 260 ITR (AT) page 1 (Nagpur). The judgment in fact is a lengthy one and spans numerous pages of the report in question. In perusing the judgment we find that the facts are absolutely identical and the Nagpur Bench by a detailed discussion on facts as also the case law, allowed the entire claim, observing in the process, at page 66, as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Tosha International Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 8 July, 2004

In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors., JT 2003 (Suppl.2) SC 443 the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 20) "Interest is also payable in equity in certain circumstances. The rule in equity is that interest is payable even in the absence of any agreement or custom to that effect though subject, of course, to a contrary agreement (See: Chitty on Contracts, Edition 1999, Vol.11, Part 38-248, at page 712). Interest in equity has been held to be payable on the market rate even though the deed contains no mention of interest. Applicability of the rule to award interest in equity is attracted on the existence of a state of circumstances being established which justify the exercise of such equitable jurisdiction and such circumstances can be many."
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 Next