Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.27 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd on 16 September, 2008
This
decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) by
holding that the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant
has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the
subsidy is given. In other words, in such cases one has to apply
'purpose test'. The point of time when the subsidy is paid is not
relevant. The source is immaterial and the form of subsidy is also
12
ITA Nos.99/Ahd./2014; 2830/Ahd./2013;100/Ahd./2014;
2831/Ahd./2013; 1898/Ahd./2014; 1763/Ahd./2014;
1899/Ahd./2014; 701/Ahd./2015; 348/Ahd./2015;
Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit - (Ltu) - 1 , Mumbai on 4 March, 2020
We must, therefore,
uphold the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals),
which are in consonance with the Special Bench decision in the case
of Reliance Industries (supra) and coordinate bench decision in the
case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd (supra), and decline to interfere in
the matter.
Section 36 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
2617/Ahd./2015 & 2461/Ahd./2015
therefore, regret our inability to follow the division bench in the case
of Jindal Power, no matter how deeply we respect and admire the
work of all our colleagues, and we would rather be guided by the
special bench decision - which is exactly what another division
bench, on the same set of facts as before us, did in the case of
Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd (supra).