Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. on 18 May, 1992
A due consideration of the facts reveals that
subscription has been made to professional institutions and
clubs. The subscription, therefore, cannot be treated as a
perquisite under Section 40(A) (5a) of the Act. Reliance may
be placed upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shriram Refrigeration
Industries Ltd.(supra). The second question is answered,
accordingly, against the revenue.
Section 40A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs C.I.T., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, ... on 4 September, 1990
Counsel for the revenue submits that extra shift
allowance can only be allowed for the relevant numbers of
ITR No. 157 of 1995 -7-
days, but the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's claim by
relying upon instruction No.1605 dated 26.2.1985 issued by
the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Assessing Officer,
while taking a view contrary to the view in the circular relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Saraswati Industrial
Syndicate Vs. CIT, 136 ITR 361.
United Catalysts India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 December, 1996
Counsel for the revenue submits with respect to
question No.1, that in view of the clear and unambiguous
language used in Section 37(4) and 37(5) of the Income Tax
Act (for short 'the Act'), as applicable to the assessment
year, the Assessing Officer rightly made additions with
respect to rent paid by the assessee for use of the guest
house belonging to P.S.I.D.C. The Tribunal has, however,
erred in deleting this addition by relying upon Section 30 of
the Act. Section 30 of the Act relates to payment of rent for
business premises etc., whereas Section 37(4) read with
Section 37(5) of the Act specifically refers to rent paid for a
ITR No. 157 of 1995 -3-
guest house. The question has already been answered in
favour of the revenue in United Catalysts India Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, (1998) 229 ITR 233 and
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills
Ltd., (1994) 206 ITR 215.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs S. Rajagopalan, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 25 April, 1973
As regards the question No.5, the controversy is
covered against the revenue by circular No.380, dated
10.04.1984, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and
a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian
Oil Corporation Vs. S. Rajagopalan ITO, (1973) 92 ITR 241
(Bom). Counsel for the revenue is unable to raise any
meaningful argument against the circular or the aforesaid
judgment. We consequently hold against the revenue and
ITR No. 157 of 1995 -8-
answer the question accordingly.
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S South India Viscose Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 July, 1997
A due consideration of the arguments reveals that
the ITAT has relied upon a circular issued by Central Board of
Direct Taxes while holding in favour of the assessee. A
perusal of the judgment in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate's
case (supra) reveals that it does not pertain to extra shift
allowance and is, therefore, irrelevant. The question has
even otherwise already been answered in favour of
assessees by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South India
Viscose Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 141
CTR (SC) 374 and as a consequence, the question is
answered against the revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. on 13 December, 1984
Counsel for the revenue submits with respect to
question No.1, that in view of the clear and unambiguous
language used in Section 37(4) and 37(5) of the Income Tax
Act (for short 'the Act'), as applicable to the assessment
year, the Assessing Officer rightly made additions with
respect to rent paid by the assessee for use of the guest
house belonging to P.S.I.D.C. The Tribunal has, however,
erred in deleting this addition by relying upon Section 30 of
the Act. Section 30 of the Act relates to payment of rent for
business premises etc., whereas Section 37(4) read with
Section 37(5) of the Act specifically refers to rent paid for a
ITR No. 157 of 1995 -3-
guest house. The question has already been answered in
favour of the revenue in United Catalysts India Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, (1998) 229 ITR 233 and
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills
Ltd., (1994) 206 ITR 215.