Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 100 (0.77 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare ... on 20 July, 2007
cites
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 March, 1988
3. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is also misplaced. It is not a decision which interprets the provisions of law contained in Section 43B.
Lakhanpal National Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 9 March, 1999
4.6 The learned Departmental Representative before us emphasized that in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. (supra) the liability to pay excise duty had accrued in the year 1983 and the sum was paid in the year 1983. The condition of accrual of liability as well as actual payment was proved. Therefore, the case supported the stand of the Revenue. It was also contended that their Lordship accepted that Section 43B of the Act does not enlarge the scope of the deduction. We are unable to accept this argument. In place of mere accrual, requirement of actual payment cannot be argued to have enlarged the scope of the section. The decision cannot be read by taking one line from here and one from there. The ratio of decision is to be considered and the ratio about change brought about by Section 43B is recorded as under:
Berger Paints India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta on 17 February, 2004
(Emphasis, italicized in print, supplied)
This judgment, as pointed out earlier, has been followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), and the Madras High Court in the case of Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. (supra), and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has approved the above three judgments.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 21 November, 1990
The Madras High Court in the case of Chemicals & Plastics (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Ltd. (supra) while examining the case where the assessee has not charged the duty paid by it to the P&L a/c but at the same time claimed the deduction under Section 43B. The assessee in that case did not claim the item in the P&L a/c for the reason that a part of the customs duty paid was in respect of raw materials which remained with the assessee at the end of the year. In all the above three cases, the facts considered by the High Courts are marginally different from the facts of the present case. In those cases, the Courts were examining the nature of excise duty and customs duty paid by the assessees, but embedded in the stock of goods not consumed and/or cleared. In the present case, the issue is that of advance payment of excise duty, per se. The Courts while examining the issues before them in those cases, have in fact examined the law on the subject in its entire perspective and have clearly held that advance payments of excise duty are deductible under Section 43B.
Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 September, 2002
The Madras High Court in the case of Chemicals & Plastics (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Ltd. (supra) while examining the case where the assessee has not charged the duty paid by it to the P&L a/c but at the same time claimed the deduction under Section 43B. The assessee in that case did not claim the item in the P&L a/c for the reason that a part of the customs duty paid was in respect of raw materials which remained with the assessee at the end of the year. In all the above three cases, the facts considered by the High Courts are marginally different from the facts of the present case. In those cases, the Courts were examining the nature of excise duty and customs duty paid by the assessees, but embedded in the stock of goods not consumed and/or cleared. In the present case, the issue is that of advance payment of excise duty, per se. The Courts while examining the issues before them in those cases, have in fact examined the law on the subject in its entire perspective and have clearly held that advance payments of excise duty are deductible under Section 43B.