Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 98 (0.43 seconds)Section 80M in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Woolcombers Of India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) on 12 February, 1981
In the case of India Cement Ltd. (supra), before the Supreme Court the facts were that the assessee-company, a public limited company at all relevant times used to manufacture cement in its factory in Salem district of Tamilnadu. The Government of Tamilnadu sanctioned the grant to the company mining lease of limestone and concur for a period of 20 years at certain rates of royalty, dead rent and surface rent. Under s. 15 of Madras Panchayat Act, as amended by the Madras Act of 1964, the appellant was required to pay cess @45 paise per rupee an the said imposition was with retrospective effect along with local cess surcharge under s. 116 of the Act. The contention of the assessee was that the cess on royalty cannot be levied as it was beyond the constitutional power of the State Government. In paras 33-34 of the judgment, their Lordships held that royalty is directly relatable only to the minerals extracted and on the principle that the general provision is excluded by the special one, royalty would be relatable to Entries 23 and 50 of List II. In the aforesaid view of the matter, their Lordships held that royalty is a tax and such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty is beyond the competence of State legislature because s. 9 of the Central Act covers the field and the State legislature denuded of its competence under Entry 23 of List II. In any case their Lordships opined that cess on royalty cannot be sustained under Entry 49 of List II as being a tax on land. Royalty on mineral rights is not a tax on land.
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. East India Pharmaceutical Works ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. West Bengal on 11 March, 1997
11. The learned Departmental Representative had vehemently contended that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and similar other decisions are no longer good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Pharmaceuticals Works vs. CIT (supra). We do not agree. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following pertinent observation at p. 632 of the Report :
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Industrial Solvents And Chemicals Pvt. ... on 20 June, 1978
30.10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee fully satisfied to test laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Industrial Solvents and Chemicals (P) Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Forging & Stamping (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein the Court observed thus, even the installation of machinery simpliciter was in the special circumstances of the case regarded as part of the operation for setting up and not equivalent to setting up of the business." In the latter case, business was said to have been set up and installed when the assessee received power connection.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Forging & Stamping Pvt. Ltd. on 29 January, 1979
30.11. In the present case, the Revenue has accepted that plant was put to use to "check whether production unit is in a position to work or not." They have surmised that only raw material came out without any metallisation which had no market (p. 57 of the AO's order). But above findings have no supporting evidence and, therefore, in the light of opinion of experts and events and statements of 15th April, 1993 unchallenged consumption of raw material and other documentary evidence referred to above, we hold that the assessee did produce sponge iron of the quantity mentioned by the assessee. The sponge iron might not have been of standard quality or requisite metallisation or marketable. The plant admittedly developed snags and was closed down on 31st March, 1993. Between April and October, 1993 it did develop problems and was shut down for long and short intervals. The detail of defects developed has been placed by the assessee on record, but from above it does not follow that plant was not set up before 31st March, 1993. It is well known that every plant has teething troubles and earlier production given is not of standard quality or marketable. But from above, it cannot be said that plant has not been set up. The setting up of a business is a stage prior to commencement of business. Therefore, when machinery has been fully installed and is ready to produce and on operation reasonable production is made the business must be taken to be set up. The machinery have been put to business use. Thus, on the basis of voluminous evidence on record, we hold that the business of the assessee was set up on 30th March, 1993, and it was entitled to depreciation on plant as also of business loss amounting to Rs. 27.54 lakhs. We order accordingly.