Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. on 30 August, 1996
8. The question which arose for our consideration in that case was as to
whether washing soap would be covered by the expression "soap"
occurring in entry 4. The High Court, going by the consideration, held that
that the word „soap‟ appears alongwith tooth paste, dental cream, tooth
powder, the intention was to include only that kind of soap which is meant
for human hygiene and, therefore, the expression "soap" in the concerned
provision would not include washing soap. The relevant discussion in the
said judgment is to the following effect:-
Cit vs Radico Khaitan Ltd. on 14 September, 2004
11. The judgment of Allahabad High Court in the Commissioner of
Income Tax & Anr. Vs Radico Khaitan Ltd., 274 ITR 354 would not be of
any assistance to the revenue. No doubt, the facts of that case suggest that
the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of industrial alcohol, IMFL,
country liquor, fertilizers etc. and the High Court held that the investment
allowance was not admissible in respect of the plant and machinery
installed for the purpose of manufacture of any of the items mentioned in
11th Schedule. However, at the same time, it suggests that it was limited to
the distillery unit which was dealing with the manufacturing of IMFL and
Page 6 of 9
ITR No. 21 of 1991
country liquor only. The question with which we are concerned in the
present case did not arise for consideration and, therefore, was not
addressed at all namely; if the same machinery is used both for the purpose
of manufacturing of industrial alcohol as well as for manufacture of IMFL
and country liquor etc., whether on such plant or machinery, the
investment allowance would be admissible. When such a situation arises,
sub Section (2A) of Section 32A of the Act would be the governing
provision.
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1