Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. on 18 May, 1992
To the same effect is the decision of this Court in CIT v. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 431 (Del). In the light of these pronouncements, therefore, we have no difficulty in answering question No. 1 above against the revenue and in favor of the assessed and in holding that cash reimbursement of medical expenses is not a perquisite in the hands of the employees but would constitute a part of the salary drawn by them.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Bombaycity vs Chunilal V. Mehta And Sons (P) Ltd on 11 August, 1971
5. Coming then to question No. 2 extracted above, the issue is in our view sufficiently covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. ChunilalBhagwandas Mehta(1978) 113 ITR 436 (Bom), CIT v. Vulcan Laval Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 453 (Bom.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mir Mohd. Ali, Bus Owner, Vellore on 24 April, 1964
), Ms. Bansal also referred to us the Judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mir Mohammad Ali (1964) 53 ITR 165 (SC) to submit that the pronouncement of the courts elsewhere in the country as also the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case have recognised that development rebate can be claimed even on loose tools and block tools under the Income Tax Act. In that view therefore question No. 2 must also be answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessed. We accordingly do so and hold that loose tools and block tools were rightly held by the Tribunal to be entitled to development rebate under the Income Tax Act.
Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay Etc vs M/S.Mafatlal Gansabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. ... on 12 March, 1996
Insofar as question No. 1 is concerned, she drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 644 (SC), where their Lordships have held that cash reimbursement of medical expenses was not a perquisite.