Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.47 seconds)Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
The Income Tax Act, 1961
State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966
7. Before we proceed to consider the contentions on the merits, we proceed to dispose of this legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. We had pursued the order of the learned Commissioner in paras 5, 6 and 7 of his order and we find that he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gojer Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Rattan Lal Singh (supra) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) where it was held that the doctrine of merger was not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it could not be said that wherever there were two order one of the inferior tribunal and the other by the superior Tribunal the two orders merged irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate order and the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statue. From the order of the learned Commissioner, it appears that there is difference of opinion between the various High Courts on the question of the merger of the order of the ITO with the order of the first appllate authority. We will have, therefore, to proceed from the principle laid doen by the Supreme Court and then to find the circumstances in which it can be held the order of the ITO has merged with the order of the first appellate authority.
Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd vs Ratan Lal Singh on 1 May, 1974
7. Before we proceed to consider the contentions on the merits, we proceed to dispose of this legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. We had pursued the order of the learned Commissioner in paras 5, 6 and 7 of his order and we find that he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gojer Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Rattan Lal Singh (supra) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) where it was held that the doctrine of merger was not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it could not be said that wherever there were two order one of the inferior tribunal and the other by the superior Tribunal the two orders merged irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate order and the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statue. From the order of the learned Commissioner, it appears that there is difference of opinion between the various High Courts on the question of the merger of the order of the ITO with the order of the first appllate authority. We will have, therefore, to proceed from the principle laid doen by the Supreme Court and then to find the circumstances in which it can be held the order of the ITO has merged with the order of the first appellate authority.
The Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal, Calcutta on 29 March, 1972
Applying the above principles, the High Court held that by chopping of the branches or by cutting into small pieces the nature was not changed and there was no transformation in different articles having distinctive names and characters. The High Court dissented from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shaw Bros. & Co. v. State of West Bengal and held that such activity was not a manufacturing activity.