Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.39 seconds)The Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore, ... vs The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd on 27 April, 1971
However, when we asked the learned counsel as to why the dividend declared by the general body of the company on September 30, 1969, cannot similarly relate back to 1st April, 1969, the only answer of the learned counsel was that the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 566 was concerned with "reserve" and the principle of that decision cannot be applied to a "liability" like declaration of dividend. We are unable to accept this contention.
Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd vs Comnmissioner Of Wealth Tax, (Central) ... on 24 November, 1965
In this view, the very basis in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1974] 96 ITR 248 run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax , disappears and we see no conflict whatsoever between both the decisions.
Nagammal Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 May, 1973
This aspect was not urged before this court when it decided the case in Nagammal Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 387, and the question has not been considered at all in the judgment under consideration. We think, therefore, that the decision cannot be taken to be a precedent for the question which has to be dealt with in this judgment, but can be distinguished, as we propose to do, as a case where the emphasis had been on the payment out of the money which was at one time provided for dividend and in view of the fact that the proposal of the directors was later approved by the shareholders of the company and the money had been actually expended for the purpose. We are not called upon in this case to consider whether payment out during the year of account will deprive the right of an assessee to claim the benefit, for, that question does not arise before us, no point having been taken in that behalf. We, therefore, leave that question open to be considered in another appropriate case."
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
In fact, the decision of this court is wholly consistent with the principle of the decision in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen as well as Commissioner of Income-tax v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. , and, applying the said principles, the bench had come to the conclusion that the provisions for taxation, retirement gratuity and dividends are provisions and not 'reserves' for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Aryodaya Ginning And Manufacturing Co. ... on 23 August, 1956
We are of the opinion that this decision cannot be of any assistance whatever to the assessee-company in the present case. In the first place, that decision was rendered obviously on an application for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the case to the High Court and, therefore, the decision itself does not refer to the facts of the case. Secondly, the court distinguished its earlier decision in CIT v. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 45 (Bom) only on the ground that no amount whatsoever had been set apart even for dividend reserve and that actually except for a bare recommendation in the directors' report for declaration of dividend, no amount was set apart for payment of the said amount. However, the facts of the present case are different. As we have pointed out already, in their report dated September 1, 1969, the directors actually recommended the distribution of dividend in a sum of Rs. 18,64,065 and the fact that this amount was mentioned only in the directors' report and not in the balance-sheet will not affect the position.
Madras Motor And General Insurance Co. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 November, 1977
Since we are referring this matter to a Full Bench, we feel that it is not necessary to set out the facts or the arguments in detail. Suffice it to state that the learned counsel for the assessee relied on a Full Bench judgment in Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 534 (Mad) as concluding this question. In this decision, this court considered the scope of r. 1, Second Schedule, to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Since the assessee, in that case, was an insurance company, the argument on behalf of the revenue based on Expln. II to r. 1 was not considered and no definite answer was given. In the present case, since the assessee is not an insurance company, the computation of the capital will have to be done with reference to the Explanation.
Article 107 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs The Century Spinning And Manufacturing ... on 8 October, 1953
The position is different in the case reported in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co.'s case , which dealt with the provision of rule 2(1) of Schedule II of the Business Profits Tax Act of 1947, which used the words 'on the first day of the accounting period' as distinguished from the words 'as on' used in rule 1 of Schedule II of the Super Profits Tax Act with which we are concerned. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the appropriation came to be made subsequent to the first day of the previous year and, therefore, it should be taken that on the relevant date the profits have not been appropriated for any particular purpose cannot, therefore, be accepted. Though the appropriation came to be actually made by the first day of the previous year."