Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K. Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills ... on 13 May, 1974
Further, assistance can be taken from CIT v. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 153 (All.
Challapalli Sugar Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. ... on 31 October, 1974
), Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Tata Mills Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 496 (Bom.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal ... vs Rajendra Prasad Moody, Calcutta Etc on 4 October, 1978
), Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Tata Mills Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 496 (Bom.)
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commr. Of Income Tax, West Bengal, ... on 27 September, 1978
), Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Tata Mills Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 496 (Bom.)
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Commlssioner Of Income-Tax Andhra ... on 25 September, 1981
He further stated that exclusion of dividend of Rs. 24,32,250 is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the second direction of the Commissioner was also correct. He, therefore, urged that the order of the Commissioner should be maintained.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. on 19 October, 1978
11. The above conclusion is further supported by the decision in Addl. CIT v. Bharat Fritz Werner (P.) Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 25 (Kar.). The facts are similar to the facts in the present case. The assessee issued redeemable cumulative preference shares for Rs. 6 lakhs which were redeemable on 31-12-1970, or earlier, at the option of the assessee. The assessee created preference share capital redemption reserve. The assessee claimed before the ITO that the reserve should be considered while determining the capital base. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee but, however, the AAC accepted the same and the finding of the AAC was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner, Mysore, was in reference and the Hon'ble High Court accepted the claim of the assessee. The assessee in the present case had only created the reserve against the debenture stock, whereas in the above case the reserve was created against the preference share capital and, therefore, even the above case supports the plea of the assessee.