Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)Challapalli Sugar Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. ... on 31 October, 1974
In Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167, the Supreme Court held that in determining the cost of fixed assets, all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them in working condition has to be included.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K. Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills ... on 23 January, 1980
In CIT v. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 153 (All), interest paid to the State Government on the loan taken for setting up the factory, expenses like wages, salaries, insurance premia, etc., were allowed to be capitalised. Where a plant is constructed out of borrowed money, interest paid up to the date of commission of the plant was also allowed to be capitalised and treated as part of the actual cost. The actual cost of a particular asset is a question of fact. On a consideration of the entire facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that only an amount of Rs. 1,65,707 out of Rs. 2,79,847 was eligible for capitalisation and formed part of the actual cost of the assets eligible for depreciation, development rebate, etc. We cannot say that this finding is erroneous or otherwise infirm.
Lohia Machines Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 January, 1985
9. Regarding the claim of relief under Section 80J, the Tribunal had only directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute the capital in accordance with the provisions of Section 80J (1A) of the Act which he has to do in the light of the decision reported in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308 (SC). The Income-tax Officer will work out the relief in the light of the aforesaid decision and the amended provision.
1