Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. on 24 November, 1980
In the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 35, it was observed (at p. 38) :
Travancore Rayons Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 October, 1985
In Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 732, the Kerala High Court was considering a case whether computation of income of a company chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" would be governed under section 40(c) or section 40A(5) in respect of the amenities given to a director. It was held that, in view of the non obstante clause in section 40A(1), section 40(c) is controlled by section 40A(5).
Porritts And Spencer (Asia) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 March, 1989
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the decision in Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 211, relied upon the Calcutta High Court decision.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nuchem Plastics Ltd. on 2 February, 1989
Same was the view of that court in an earlier decision in CIT v. Nuchem Plastics Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 196 (P&H).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd. on 30 April, 1988
The Gujarat High Court, in the decision in CIT v. Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 179, distinguished the decision of the Calcutta High Court.
Section 40 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1