Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)D.V. Bapat, I.T.O, Companies Circle, ... vs Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. on 8 January, 1986
6. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.'s case [1975] 101 ITR 292 and the said decision was reversed and the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court in D. V. Bapat, ITO v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 938. It should be noted here that the decision of the Bombay High Court was rendered on February 26, 1975. Section 40A(7) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1973. In other words, the Bombay High Court did not have the benefit of the retrospective amendment made to the relevant section when the judgment was pronounced. The relevant assessment year in the said case was 1973-74. From this, it cannot be said that the principles enunciated by the Bombay High Court as to the deductibility of the value of the provision for gratuity, prior to the insertion of section 40A(7), cannot be accepted.
Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, M.P. Bhopal ... on 8 October, 1985
In fact, the relevant principles are quite exhaustively stated by the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585. While construing the provisions of section 40A(7), the Court also had occasion to point out the law which was prevalent earlier. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are at page 599 and they read as under :
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
In the aforesaid Metal Box Co.'s case , the court pointed out the distinction between making a provision against anticipated losses and contingencies which are charged against profits and, therefore, to be taken into account against gross profits in the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet, on the one hand, and "reserves", which are appropriations of profits."Provisions" are usually shown in the balance-sheet by way of deductions, whereas general reserves and reserve funds are shown as part of the proprietor's interest. The provision for a contingency is set aside out of profits.
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Commlssioner Of Income-Tax Andhra ... on 25 September, 1981
In Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT , the broad principles governing the fact situation is stated at page 574, thus :
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 40A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs D.V. Bapat, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 26 February, 1975
6. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.'s case [1975] 101 ITR 292 and the said decision was reversed and the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court in D. V. Bapat, ITO v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 938. It should be noted here that the decision of the Bombay High Court was rendered on February 26, 1975. Section 40A(7) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1973. In other words, the Bombay High Court did not have the benefit of the retrospective amendment made to the relevant section when the judgment was pronounced. The relevant assessment year in the said case was 1973-74. From this, it cannot be said that the principles enunciated by the Bombay High Court as to the deductibility of the value of the provision for gratuity, prior to the insertion of section 40A(7), cannot be accepted.