Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.94 seconds)Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mohammed Abdul Kader vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 February, 1961
3. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the statistics relating to the gross profit highlighting its downfall in the current year and also about the alleged additional production outside the books, stressing upon the chemical formula on the basis of which the AO had detected suppression of production and its eventual sales. For his submissions the Departmental Representative relied on the decisions in Mangal Chand Gordhan Das vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 706 (Assam), Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), Abdul Bhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom) and Homi Jehangir Cheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC). The learned counsel fully supported the order of the CIT(A).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. ... on 12 September, 1990
5. The next ground pertains to the allowance of depreciation. The AO allowed depreciation on the cost of the assets after deducting subsidy therefrom. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors (P) Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 91 CTR (Raj) 49.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs P.J. Chemicals Ltd. Etc on 14 September, 1994
It is conceded by the learned Departmental Representative that the issue is resolved in favour of the assessee by the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC). Respectfully following the said decision we direct the AO to grant depreciation on the value of the assets without deducting the amount of subsidy therefrom.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Loonkar Tools Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur Cables ... on 21 July, 1994
6. The last ground pertains to the allowance of deduction under s. 80HH and 80-I. The AO allowed these deductions after setting off of the earlier years losses, whereas the assessees claim was that the same should be allowed on commercial profits. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following a Tribunals decision in the case of Jodhpur Cable Conductors in ITA No. 1044/Jp/85. However, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel that the issue has been decided by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Loonkar Tools (P) Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 721 (Raj) and CIT vs. Vishnu Oil & Dal Mills (1996) 218 ITR 71 (Raj). Respectfully following the said decision we direct that the assessee be granted deduction under s. 80HH and 80-I after setting off of earlier years losses.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vishnu Oil And Dal Mills on 13 November, 1995
6. The last ground pertains to the allowance of deduction under s. 80HH and 80-I. The AO allowed these deductions after setting off of the earlier years losses, whereas the assessees claim was that the same should be allowed on commercial profits. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following a Tribunals decision in the case of Jodhpur Cable Conductors in ITA No. 1044/Jp/85. However, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel that the issue has been decided by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Loonkar Tools (P) Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 721 (Raj) and CIT vs. Vishnu Oil & Dal Mills (1996) 218 ITR 71 (Raj). Respectfully following the said decision we direct that the assessee be granted deduction under s. 80HH and 80-I after setting off of earlier years losses.
Mangalchand Gobardhan Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam. on 13 November, 1953
3. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the statistics relating to the gross profit highlighting its downfall in the current year and also about the alleged additional production outside the books, stressing upon the chemical formula on the basis of which the AO had detected suppression of production and its eventual sales. For his submissions the Departmental Representative relied on the decisions in Mangal Chand Gordhan Das vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 706 (Assam), Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), Abdul Bhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom) and Homi Jehangir Cheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC). The learned counsel fully supported the order of the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Vimal Chandra Golecha vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 15 May, 1981
3. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the statistics relating to the gross profit highlighting its downfall in the current year and also about the alleged additional production outside the books, stressing upon the chemical formula on the basis of which the AO had detected suppression of production and its eventual sales. For his submissions the Departmental Representative relied on the decisions in Mangal Chand Gordhan Das vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 706 (Assam), Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), Abdul Bhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom) and Homi Jehangir Cheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC). The learned counsel fully supported the order of the CIT(A).
1