Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.27 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Challapalli Sugar Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. ... on 31 October, 1974
4. The views of the Research Committee with regard to the treatment of interest paid during the construction period have been judicially considered and approved by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC). It is, therefore, a well recognised principle that interest paid before the commencement of production on amounts borrowed by the assessee for the acquisition and installation of plant and machinery forms part of the 'actual cost' of the asset for the purpose of claiming depreciation, development rebate, investment allowance, etc., under the Income-tax Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Finance Act, 1996
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sudarshan Chemical Industries Pvt. ... on 27 February, 1984
21. The third common point is with reference to the claim for deduction of surtax liability. This has been rightly disallowed in view of the decision in CIT v. Sudarshan Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 629 (Bom.).
Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 18 April, 1986
33. IT A No. 23I6lMdsl85 : The actual cost is to be taken without exclusion of interest and contribution to Death Relief Fund is to be allowed. The surtax liability has to be disallowed. The enhanced depreciation claim has to be allowed in view of the decision of the Tribunal in Rajapalayam Mills Ltd.'s case (supra). This appeal is partly allowed.
Sivakami Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 February, 1979
31. IT A No. 273/Mds/85 : We allow the actual cost to be taken without deduction of interest. There is another claim for deduction of guarantee commission paid in respect of the purchase of the capital asset as a revenue expenditure. This claim has to be allowed in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 211. This appeal is allowed.