Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)
Vikshara Trading & Investment ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 March, 1998 cites

Prithviraj Bhoorchand vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 June, 1993

9. Shah further argued that the observations of the AO that there was one common laboratory was not correct. In fact there were four separate laboratories. The learned counsel, therefore, concluded that each unit was distinguishable, and accordingly the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80-I in respect of each unit. Regarding the contention of the AO that the labourers working in the assessee's manufacturing unit cannot be treated as employees of the assessee but of the contractors engaged by the assessee, the learned counsel contended that while the bills were raised by the contractors all payments were directly made to the workmen each and every payment was also entered in the wages register. According to the learned counsel these workers were under the de facto control of the assessee-company. The contractors did not have any independent source of income or any independent factory. It was the assessee's manufacturing unit which provided the jobs to the labourers as well as the contractors. He, therefore, concluded that the assessee had engaged more than 10 workers and accordingly the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80-I, in view of the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench in Prithviraj Bhoorchand vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Ahd) 179 : (1993) 47 ITD 361 (Ahd).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Universal Radiators P. Ltd. on 8 January, 1980

14. As regards profit on trading sales and interest on bank deposits, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that there was no direct nexus between the manufactured goods and the goods imported and hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under s. 80-I. He submitted that it may be possible that some goods imported by the assessee might have been used in the manufacturing process, then only pro rata deduction under s. 80-I may be allowed. He submitted that interest income does not qualify for deduction under s. 80-I in view of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Radiators (P) Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 531 (Mad).
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. (Dy. ... on 27 March, 1998

The said barter/exchange was voluntarily done by the assessee by registering itself under the Export Promotion Scheme of the Govt. of India. Such exchange or barter, therefore, constitute an adventure which resulted in realising the sale proceeds of the goods exported. The transaction of sale of import entitlements has taken place in connection with the business carried on by the assessee of manufacture and export of manufactured commodities in the usual course and, therefore, it is assessable business income. This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of United Bank of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 258 (Cal).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sardar Indra Singh And Sons Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 23 September, 1953

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sardar Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 415 (SC), had also occasion to consider this proposition. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the question in such cases was whether the sales which produced a surplus were so connected with the carrying on of the assessee's business that it could fairly be said that the surplus was the profits and gains of such business. It is further noted that there is not a single purchase or sale from local market and all the profit of the so-called trading sales is on account of advance licences only. Hence, we hold that profits on trading and sale of raw materials were business income entitled to relief under s. 80-I. 18.1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - M P Sastri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Eastern Seafoods Exports (P.) Ltd. on 20 October, 1994

The reliance placed by the authorities below on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eastern Sea Foods Export (P) Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 64 (Mad) is of no assistance to the Revenue. The judgment in that case is in respect of replenishment licence whereas in the case of the assessee, it is in respect of advance licence. It is further seen that the case referred and followed by the AO is totally distinguishable from the facts of the case of the assessee because in that case the relevant period of export was from July, 1972, to September, 1972, and the working of the import replenishment was 10 per cent of total export, that is why, though the assessee was engaged in sea foods it had imported stainless steel, that is, altogether different commodities. In the case of the assessee-company, it is entitled to get advance licence in respect of the items to be exported by the company and entitlement of the import and/or working is based on fulfilment of export obligation.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next