Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs D.K. Kondke on 12 March, 1991
3. Similarly, counsel on both sides fairly state that question No. 3 (in I. T. Reference No. 404 of 1987) is covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. D.K. Kondke [1991] 192 ITR 128 in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Section 80J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Smt. Chitra Mukherjee. on 19 August, 1980
I T. R. No. 404 of 1987, CIT v. Uttam Chitra, (both the questions at the instance of the Revenue) :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hyderabad Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. on 21 September, 1999
9. Mr. M.M. Desai, learned counsel on behalf of the assessee, relying upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Hyderabad Bottling Co. P. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 476 submitted that the benefit of Section 37(3D) is available to every new product even if the industrial undertaking manufacturing the said new product has been functioning for several years. He submitted that for marketing every new picture advertisements and publicity expenses are required to be incurred and for the production of every new picture additional investments are made on the capital equipment. According to him, Section 37(3D) applies to every new picture, irrespective of it being manufactured by an existing undertaking or by a newly set up undertaking. Accordingly, he submitted that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the exemption under Section 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act was not available to the assessee.
Cit vs Ponds India Ltd on 28 June, 2001
10. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ponds India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 686, submitted that an industrial undertaking which had been set up long prior and which had commenced manufacturing, several years earlier, cannot be regarded as industrial undertaking "set up" for the purpose of Section 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act. According to him the benefit under Section 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act is available only to an undertaking which has begun to manufacture articles in the previous year. In other words, the submission on behalf of the Revenue was that the exemption under Section 37(3D) would be available only if the undertaking was set up in the previous year in which the production of a product or article commenced. In the instant case, it was submitted that, since the assessee-company was established several years ago and the assessee had produced several films in the past, the benefit of exemption notification under Section 37(3D) would not be available to the assessee, even though the production of the new picture was undertaken by the assessee in the relevant previous year.
1