Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.39 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax 10 vs M/S Colgate Palmolive(India) Ltd. on 7 September, 2015
4.1.4 The appellant has referred to case laws in its favour. On
perusal of the case laws referred to by the appellant, it is observed
that the facts and circumstances of these cases are different and it do
not cover on the similar lines. The decision in the case of the CIT Vs
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd was based on manufacturing of items
exclusively for the assessee as the assessee was wholly reliant for
manufacturing of items to be traded. Further, there was a loss on sale
of shares of WOS of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd whereas in the
present case, only part of investment in WOS has been written off on
estimation basis and not ascertained in nature. Thus the decision of
the referred vase is not applicable in the present case.
The Companies Act, 1956
Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle- 13, New Delhi on 31 May, 2023
Further, the ratio laid down in the
CIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. (supra) has further been
followed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ace
Designers Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) where also the investments
made in 100% subsidiary claimed as business loss have been
held to be correct by the Hon'ble Court.
The Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd on 9 February, 2015
23. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. U.P.
Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (supra) has held as under :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 115BBE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur vs Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji And Others on 7 October, 1958
is not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single
criteria as decisive. The question must ultimately depend on fact of
particular case and authorities bearing on the question are valuable
only as indicating the matters that have to be taken into account in
reaching a decision. It has further been held that for determining the
question of capital and incomes, trading profit or non trading profit
are questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.
[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha
v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964]
53 [TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11
(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karamchand
Thapper And Bros.
P. H. Divecha And Another vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay I on 11 December, 1962
is not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single
criteria as decisive. The question must ultimately depend on fact of
particular case and authorities bearing on the question are valuable
only as indicating the matters that have to be taken into account in
reaching a decision. It has further been held that for determining the
question of capital and incomes, trading profit or non trading profit
are questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.
[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha
v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964]
53 [TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11
(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karamchand
Thapper And Bros.
Gloster Limited (Formerly Known As ... vs A.C.I.T.,Circle-4(1), Kolkata on 13 January, 2021
is not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single
criteria as decisive. The question must ultimately depend on fact of
particular case and authorities bearing on the question are valuable
only as indicating the matters that have to be taken into account in
reaching a decision. It has further been held that for determining the
question of capital and incomes, trading profit or non trading profit
are questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.
[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha
v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964]
53 [TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11
(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karamchand
Thapper And Bros.