Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.45 seconds)
Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 September, 1997 cites

Lachit Films vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 December, 1991

4. Regarding the argument of the learned CIT(A) pertaining to the provisions of s. 28(iv) of the Act, the learned counsel of the assessee pointed out that these provisions have been considered in scholarly treatise of Sampat Iyengar's "Law of Income-tax" 9th Edn., p. 482. The learned author referred to the judgment in the case of Lachit Film vs. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 402 (Gau) and held that for applicability of provisions of s. 28(iv) the receipt should signify "Income" and should be a product of the normal working of the business.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M. Shajahan on 7 June, 1996

Reference was also made to the decisions in CIT vs. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 116 (Ker), CIT vs. Tirumala Bricks & Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP), CIT vs. M. Sahajahan (1996) 221 ITR 594 (Ker), CIT vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 222 ITR 245 (Kar) and Ludhiana Steel Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 ITD 394 (Chd) and argued that subsidy received which is in the nature of capital receipt in the hands of the recipient cannot be subjected to tax as business income.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gogte Minerals on 19 September, 1995

Reference was also made to the decisions in CIT vs. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 116 (Ker), CIT vs. Tirumala Bricks & Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP), CIT vs. M. Sahajahan (1996) 221 ITR 594 (Ker), CIT vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 222 ITR 245 (Kar) and Ludhiana Steel Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 ITD 394 (Chd) and argued that subsidy received which is in the nature of capital receipt in the hands of the recipient cannot be subjected to tax as business income.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs Commissioner Of Income Tax , Delhi Etc on 8 April, 1991

5. The learned Departmental Representative argued that the effect of this Scheme was that the assessee had larger volume of free sale sugar available with it. Hence, the receipt should be considered to be revenue receipt. He also placed reliance on the decisions in (1966) 60 ITR 253 (SC) (supra) and Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 1 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 February, 1972

Coming now to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (supra), the learned Departmental Representative has emphasised the observations at p. 10 of this judgment and argued that the obligation of the assessee to repay the loans taken from the financial institutes was obligation to apply out of his income and not before it reached the assessee. It was, therefore, not the case of diversion of income but of application of income.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 34 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Ludhiana Steels (P.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 April, 1995

Reference was also made to the decisions in CIT vs. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 116 (Ker), CIT vs. Tirumala Bricks & Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP), CIT vs. M. Sahajahan (1996) 221 ITR 594 (Ker), CIT vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 222 ITR 245 (Kar) and Ludhiana Steel Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 ITD 394 (Chd) and argued that subsidy received which is in the nature of capital receipt in the hands of the recipient cannot be subjected to tax as business income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. on 21 October, 1994

Reference was also made to the decisions in CIT vs. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 116 (Ker), CIT vs. Tirumala Bricks & Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP), CIT vs. M. Sahajahan (1996) 221 ITR 594 (Ker), CIT vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 222 ITR 245 (Kar) and Ludhiana Steel Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 56 ITD 394 (Chd) and argued that subsidy received which is in the nature of capital receipt in the hands of the recipient cannot be subjected to tax as business income.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1