Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)
N. K. Pharma Industries, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 7 December, 2011 cites

Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 27 August, 1975

In the decision of Sarabhai Corporation Ltd v. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court was not dealing with the cases of manufacturing unit as is the case of the appellant. Therefore, the ratio of that decision which is in relation to certain company letting out a building, on lease and license would not apply to the facts and circumstances of appellant's case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Prem Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I on 22 March, 1976

Similarly, in the case of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Prem Conductors v. CIT (supra), the question was not of purchase of plant and machinery, as contended in appellant's case, but the issue was as to whether starting securing orders against further production of the goods manufactured by a company could be said to be setting up of its business or not. Therefore, this decision would also not help the appellant's case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mohan Enterprises on 19 May, 1993

The finding is also be supported by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashok Marketing Ltd v. CIT reported at page 208 ITR 941 and that of CIT v. Mohan Enterprises of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra). In view of the above, it is held that the setting up of Unit No. II by the appellant is not the expansion of the existing business of Unit No. I. 7 Coming to the contention of the appellant that the business in Unit No. II should be taken to have been set up from 2.12.1999, when the machinery for the manufacturing of medicine in that unit was purchased, the same cannot be accepted. If this contention of the ld. Counsel is accepted then in all the cases the business would have been taken to be set up when the assessee's purchased plant and machinery for their factories. However, as is well known, in a number of decisions, it has been rather held that even the trial run i.e., when the entire plant and machinery is not only purchased but installed and ready for production, is not the set up of the business if everything is not found to be in order in the said trial run. The decision relied upon by the ld. Counsel in this regard would also not help the appellant's case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 October, 2007

6.2.1. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the issue as discussed above and in conformity with the rulings of the judiciary as detailed supra, we are of the firm view that setting up of Unit II by the assessee was , indeed, laced up with an expansion of the existing business in Unit-I. It is ordered accordingly. 6.3. With regard to revenue expenses of Rs.6,71,640/-, we recall the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd v. CIT reported in (2009) 311 ITR 405 (Delhi) 18 wherein the issue, in brief, was that the assessee-company manufactured fans and sewing machines at various units including in Hyderabad. It decided to expand its activities and, therefore, undertook a fuel injection equipment project in Hyderabad and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1.56 Crores, out of which, Rs.1.35 Crores being acquisition of plant and machinery. This claim of the assessee was turned down by the AO which was upheld by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal as well. However, the Hon'ble Court, on reference, held:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 45 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Watkins Mayor (Agrico) P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 November, 1978

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, held that question considered in these decisions is not the same as concerned in the case of Watkins Mayor (Agrico) Pvt. Ltd v. CIT 209 ITR 563. The issue in question in this case was as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of that case, the various lines of activity like Tea Estate, Coffee Estate and Plantation, etc, did not constitute one single and integrated activity of business, but, independent unit of business. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of this case that the question has to be decided on consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances and all over view has to be taken and the conclusion arrived at. The Hon'ble Court further held that even if it was found that one or two circumstances, among the several circumstances relied upon was found that one or two circumstances, among the several circumstances relied upon were not relevant, the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal could not be interfered with if there were other relevant circumstances to sustain the findings. Therefore, in then facts and circumstances of this case in spite of existence of centralized management, maintenance of single set of accounts, there being non evidence relating to interlacing, inter connection, inter dependence of the various estates in the day- to-day affairs or their functioning being dovetailed into one an other and considering that all the activities of that assessee were independent and closure of one would not affect the continuation of another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the finding that the different activities carried on by that assessee did not constitute one single and integrated activity of the business.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next