Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Patel Enterprises vs Income-Tax Officer on 7 January, 1986 cites

C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971

In our view, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mahal Hotel (supra) clearly supports the claim of the assessee as applied to the facts brought on record now. It is an admitted fact that licence for exhibiting cinematographs in places will not be allowed by the State Government unless the cinema conforms to the rules laid down for:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 327 - A N Grover - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanodia Cold Storage on 7 May, 1974

In the case of Kanodia Warehousing Corpn. (supra) and Kanodia Cold Storage (supra) the assessee claimed depreciation at 15 per cent in respect of factory buildings. It was found that walls of the building in respect of which the assessee claimed depreciation as part of the air-conditioning machinery or plant were being used as freezing chamber containing insulation material like 'cork' to keep it in appropriate temperature and it was difficult to work the cold storage or plant without such treatment. It was held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of building as a plant. The word 'plant', it was noted, as per its inclusive definition in Section 43(3) of the Act shows that the Legislature intended to give an extended meaning which went even beyond that conveyed by common parlance.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanodia Warehousing Corporation on 15 November, 1979

The assessee of Kanodia Warehousing Corpn. (supra) apart from supporting the case of the assessee is distinguishable on the facts because the case was concerned with warehouses utilised by the assessee for storing potatoes on behalf of customers. For the sake of clarification we would add that the claim of the assessee is not in respect of an allowance under Section 32A of the Act and, therefore, whether the assessee is engaged in industrial activity, apart from trade is not relevant for consideration and this would reject the argument of the learned departmental representative.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985

2. That the view that once a decision has been taken in an earlier year it should be invariably followed has now to be examined in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Distributors Baroda (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 and referred to the observations in that decision at page 124 of the Report to the effect that earlier view which is erroneous has to be corrected, to perpetuate an error is no heroism and to rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. In short, it is submitted that an injustice arising from an erroneous view taken earlier should not be perpetuated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 103 - Cited by 688 - A P Sen - Full Document
1