Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Rane Brake Linings Ltd on 7 April, 2014

M/S.Nagarjuna Oil Corp. Ltd vs . Asst.Commr., It on 16 October, 2020

6. Further, it was observed that with effect from 13.07.2007, any amount paid by the Assessee, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub- lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of the land has to be treated as rent. Since the Madras High Court in Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (Supra) had no occasion to consider the explanation (i) to Section 194-I which was introduced with effect from 13.07.2006, that judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the case as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s.TRIL Infopark Ltd., in our opinion, the order of the Tribunal in the case of Foxconn India Developers (P) Ltd vs. ITO (Supra) is squarely applicable and the Assessee is liable to deducted TDS. Since the recipient has paid the taxes, the Assessee is liable for payment of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the appeals of the Assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Arcata Tradlink Pvt.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

"keeping in view the aforesaid facts, circumstances and various judicial pronouncements, the fact emerges that Torrent Power AEC Ltd. has raised the demand of Rs.7,00,815/- against the appellant in respect of electricity services at 'Aavas', Mouripoz Farm, S.G. Highway, Atimeabad, which is the appellant's corporate office. Consequently, Torrent Power AEC Ltd. was specifically asked vide letter dated 6.11.2006 to inform about the exact nature of the recovery made and whether the whole amount or in part of the same is in the nature of penalty. In its reply dated 14.11.2006; Torrent Power. AEC Ltd. stated the breakup of the amount of Rs.7,00,815/- such as (i.e. normal charges- Rs.2,79,526/-; penal charges Rs.4,19,281/- and incidental charges Rs.2,000/-). As is abundantly clear from the explanation to section 37(1) that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. Consequently, the penalties paid for violation of the law during the course of the conduct of the business cannot be regarded as deductible expenditure particularly after the insertion of Explanation to Section 37(1) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 (CIT vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (2001) 115 Taxman 367 (Mad); Malwa Vanaspati and Chemicals Co. vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC); Simplex Structural Works vs. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 782 (MP) and Paramjit Bhain and Others vs. Union of India dated 9-11-2005 reported in AIR 2006 440 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs Assessee

21. After carefully considering the rival submissions and also perusing the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel and from a bare reading of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia), it is quite evident from the language of the sections that any expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee, after the 31st day of March, 1967, the whole of such capital expenditure incurred in any previous year, then such 24 ITA Nos1811&1814/07 expenditure on scientific research is to be allowed in the year in which such an expenditure has been incurred. The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Rane Brake Linings Ltd (supra), has explained the admissibility of this deduction in the following manner :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

21. After carefully considering the rival submissions and also perusing the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel and from a bare reading of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia), it is quite evident from the language of the sections that any expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee, after the 31st day of March, 1967, the whole of such capital expenditure incurred in any previous year, then such 24 ITA Nos1811&1814/07 expenditure on scientific research is to be allowed in the year in which such an expenditure has been incurred. The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Rane Brake Linings Ltd (supra), has explained the admissibility of this deduction in the following manner :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, ... on 31 July, 2024

(i) CIT vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 82 (Mad) The Madras High Court by relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 50 : (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) held that deduction under s. 80-I of the Act will have to be computed after adjustment of brought forward losses of earlier years.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next