Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (1.14 seconds)Section 141 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 6 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Commlssioner Of Income-Tax Andhra ... on 25 September, 1981
28. The last item which remains to be considered is with respect to the sum of Rs. 1,26,29,182, being the total amount of deductions claimed under Chap. VI-A of the I.T. Act in computing the total income. The ITO has rejected the contention of Siemens with respect to this sum on the ground that the amount of such deductions did not form part of the total income and, therefore, r. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act applied. The said rule has been reproduced earlier. Under that rule where a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the I.T. Act, its capital is to be the sum ascertained in accordance with rr. 1, 2 and 3 of the Second Schedule, diminished by an amount which bears to that sum the same proportion as the amount of such income, profits and gains bears to the total amounts of its income, profits and gains. The question which arises for determination is whether deductions claimed under Chap. VI-A of the I.T. Act are not includible in the total income of Siemens. The expression "total income" is defined by cl. (45) of s. 2 of the I.T. Act, as meaning "the total amount of income referred to in s. 5, computed in the manner laid down" in the I.T. Act. Under s. 4, income-tax is to be charged "in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of this Act (that is, the I.T. Act) in respect of the total income of the previous year or previous years, as the case may be, of every person." Section 5(1) of the I.T. Act provides as follows :
Second Income-Tax Officer vs A. Johnson on 10 November, 1981
27. The next item is with respect to the provision for dividend. According to the note in the balance-sheet, the directors had recommended dividend at the rate of 18% free of tax, amounting to Rs. 43,20,000, which was to be paid out of the general reserve if approved by the shareholders at the annual general meeting and for which no separate provision had been made. It is not disputed that as at the date of the impugned order of provisional assessment the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay had taken a view favourable to the assessees in several decisions, namely, S.T.A. No. 212 (Bom) of 1973-74 - ITO v. Inarco Ltd., S.T.A. No. 289 (Bom)/70-71 - ITO v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd., S.T.A. No. 137 (Bom) of 1972 - ITO v. Colour-Chem Ltd., and S.T.A. No. 24 (Bom) of 1973-74 - ITO v. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. The ITO was, therefore, not entitled to take a view contrary to that taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay.