Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. ... on 12 September, 1990
2. The application under Section 256(1) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that so far as question No. (1) is concerned, that stands concluded by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 494 which was decided in favour of the assessee and hence this question does not require further reference to the High Court. So far as question No. (2) is concerned, the Tribunal opined that how much addition has to be sustained on estimated basis, is a question of fact and requires no reference to the High Court.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs P.J. Chemicals Ltd. Etc on 14 September, 1994
3. The first question sought to be referred by the Revenue stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. P. J, Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830, wherein it has been held that the Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage the enterpreneurs to move to backward areas and to establish the industries and the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost under Section 43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation, etc. Since the question sought to be referred already stands decided by the judgment of the apex court, the Tribunal was, therefore, right in declining to refer this question to the High Court.
1