Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
The Companies Act, 1956
Shree Ram Milis Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 1 March, 1976
12. In order to find out whether certain amount set apart was "reserve" or "provision", the true nature of the amount could be taken into account and not the mere description by the assessee. It is rightly pointed out in the case of Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 1TR 21, 40, that two things must co-exist before the amount can be treated as reserve, namely, (a) that the amount must be separated from the general mass of profits and (b) that it should be apparent from the surrounding circumstances that it is, in fact, a reserve and not an amount for distribution as dividend. Having regard to this principle there will be no justification to hold that the sum of Rs. 19,57,258 set apart in this case was kept for distribution as dividend.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay-Ii vs Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. on 30 March, 1976
13. We like to point out in this connection that the Bombay High Court in the case, in CIT v. Forbes Forbes. Campbell & Co. Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 38 appears to have laid down the correct position in law. We are fully in agreement with the views and observations of their Lordships.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. on 4 May, 1973
To meet the arguments of Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the revenue, regarding definition of "reserves" and "provisions" under the Companies Act, 1956, Dr. Pal refers to the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 78, wherein it is pointed out that the manner in which the balance-sheet of a company had been prepared will not decide the question as to whether an amount is really a "reserve" or not for the purpose of the S.P.T Act, 1963. According to the Madras High Court, though there is a distinction between a "reserve" and a "provision" in the Companies Act, 1956, that distinction cannot be imported into the meaning of the word "reserve" in Rule 1 of the Second Schedule of the S.P.T. Act, the term therein means a sum specifically set aside for future use for a specific occasion before the distribution of dividends to the shareholders and it must be a specified sum for a specific use.
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
Thus, according to Dr. Pal, the decision in Metal Box case would be of little assistance in coming out to the decision in the present case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. on 1 August, 1961
14. Similar point also arose in I.T.R. No. 371 of 1970 [CIT and SPT v. Burn & Co. Ltd. ], which came up for hearing before us. My Lord, Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the court, also answered the point in favour of the assessee holding similar views.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Standard Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 26 September, 1962
The decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Mill Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 470 is referred to to show the nature of liability.