Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd on 10 April, 1964
Learned counsel submitted before us that when the Division Bench decided the case--CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., [ 1987] 168 ITR 63 (Ker)--the subsidy scheme framed by the Rubber Board was not before it, since no detailed and relevant references are seen to have been made to the subsidy scheme framed by the Rubber Board and the provisions of the Rubber Act.
Section 12 in The Rubber Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Rubber Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Rubber Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 1 November, 1962
34. We are tempted to say that the subsidy received by the assessee is used to acquire an asset by replanting high-yield variety of rubber trees. The difference is, as said by Bowen L. J., the expenditure in the acquisition of the concern will be capital expenditure and the expenditure in carrying on the concern is revenue expenditure. This makes the vital difference between the cases reported in Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala, [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 83 and Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T., [1961] 41 ITR 751 (SC).
V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 17 December, 1965
The case decided by the Division Bench in Malayalam Plantations' case [1987] 168 ITR 63 (Ker) and the cases before us do not at all have those vital distinctive facts/ features found in Meenakshi Achi's case [1966] 60 ITR 253 (SC).