Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Berlia Chemicals & Traders (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 October, 1999
cites
Section 80AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
Section 43 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Banque Nationale De-Paris on 21 March, 1997
We, therefore, repeat that there can be no clarification of a thing which never existed earlier. If the intention was to make it retrospectively effective, it would have specified so in no uncertain terms as was done when Expln. 8 was inserted by the Finance Act, 1986, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1974. The situation in the present case is clearly distinguishable from the one which was before the Bombay High Court in the case of Banque Nationale De Paris (supra). In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that Expln. 4A has no retrospective operation.
Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979
"In the case of Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243 (SC), the Supreme Court held that in computing the taxable income for the purposes of the IT Act, the deduction in respect of intercorporate dividends should be allowed on the gross amount of such dividends received by the company and not with reference to net amount, i.e., after giving deduction in respect of interest paid on borrowings, etc. Since this decision ran counter to the legislative intent to grant such deduction with reference to the net income by way of dividends only, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, inserted a new Section 80AA in the IT Act clarifying the intention with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. In several cases, High Courts have held that even for the purposes of determining chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the gross amount of dividends should be excluded from the total income. The legislative intent could have only been to exempt from surtax the amount of dividends which has actually been included in the total income and, accordingly, the High Court rulings have resulted in giving an unintended benefit to companies in respect of dividends received by them from domestic companies."
Keshavji Ravji & Co. Etc. Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 1990
In holding so we derive strength from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC). In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 40(b) and with Expln. 1 inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, in Clause (b) of Section 40. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee was that the insertion of Expln. 1, though later in point of time, constituted a legislative exposition of the correct import of the provision and, so construed, it offered a guide to the correct understanding of the provisions in Section 40(b) in its application to the earlier years as well. The "Notes on Clauses" appended to the Amending Bill, however, stated that the amendment will take effect from 1st April, 1985, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the asst. yr. 1985-86 and subsequent years. The Court, therefore, observed that (at p. 19 of 182 ITR) :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sridev Enterprises on 28 January, 1991
17. Shii V.H. Patil submitted that in the earlier year there was no disallowance and in fact, the debits this year had reduced from Rs. 101 lacs to Rs. 66.72 lacs. Moreover, out of total interest of Rs. 6,22,811 a sum of Rs. 6,07,000 was paid to Vijaya Bank alone as interest- This year there were no additional loans and, therefore, it could not be said that bank borrowings were used for making interest-free advances. Secondly, it was also contended that no correlation was established between interest-free advances and interest-bearing borrowings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Doctor And Co. on 6 September, 1989
18. The learned Departmental Representative by and large relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, it was pointed out that in three cases there were additional loans. He relied on the decisions in Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom) and CIT v. Doctor & Co. (1989) 180 ITR 627 (Bom).