Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 35B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Travancore Rayons Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 October, 1985
7. Bearing the above aspects in view, we are of the opinion that the Bench decision of this court in Travancore Rayons Ltd.'s case [1986] 162 ITR 732, does not require reconsideration. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. The sole question in I. T. R. No. 200 of 1987 and the first question in I. T. R. No. 201 of 1987 should be answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. on 10 October, 1980
In Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 732, this court considered the entire matter in detail and has also in terms referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Vijay Mills
Ltd.'s case [1981] 128 ITR 633 and has held that, in the case of remuneration paid to a director, an employee of the company, consisting of salary and perquisites only, the expenditure to be allowed is only with reference to Section 40A(5)(a) and (c) of the Act and not with reference to Section 40(c) of the Act.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 315 and submitted that the decisions of this court in Travancore Rayons Ltd. 's case [1986] 162 ITR 732 and [1988] 172 ITR 350 require reconsideration. We perused the said decisions.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Amritsar Rayon And Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. on 2 March, 1989
The decision of this court in Travancore Rayons Ltd.'s case [1986] 162 ITR 732 has been followed by a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Amritsar Rayon and Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 292. Our attention was not drawn to any decision of the Supreme Court which has taken a different view or any other High Court dissenting from the view taken by our High Court in the decision reported in 162 ITR 732, On the other hand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has followed the above Division Bench decision of this court. Law is not a mental exercise. Especially in regard to an all India statute, there should be certainty.
1