Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commr. Of Income-Tax, Bombay South, ... vs Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. on 19 April, 1954
(iii) CIT v. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. 181 ITR 527 (Bom.);
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bpl Systems And Projects Ltd. on 17 September, 1996
(iv) CIT v. BPL Systems & Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Kar.);
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs V.S. Dempo And Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 15 July, 1993
as well as for services rendered related to setting up of the plant. Only the royalty based on net sales could be said to be related to technology for manufacturing process. Hence, we are of the view that payment of 28 million yens was intended for setting up of the plant and, therefore, was on capital account. Thus, income arising on account of fluctuation in exchange rate, in our humble opinion, was capital receipt in view of the Supreme Court; judgment in the case of Jonas Wood head Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Premier Automobiles Ltd. on 2 April, 1993
(vi) CIT v. Premier Automobiles 208 ITR 1 (Bom.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co., Ltd on 13 January, 1966
12. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully in the light of the materials placed before us and the case law referred to. The question for our consideration is whether fluctuation in rate of exchange related to capital / revenue account. In our opinion, no universal test can be applied and the answer to the question would depend on the facts of each case. We shall first refer to some of the judgments referred to. The first judgment of the Apex Court available on this issue is CIT v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. 60 ITR 405. In that case, assessee sent 33,850 dollars to its agent in USA, after obtaining permission of Exchange Central Authorities for purchase of capital goods. The assessee had also earned commission of 36,123 dollars on the sale of goods of American Company - Baldwin Locomotive Works. This amount was also retained with its US Agent for purchase of goods. Later on, the assessee found it more expensive to buy American goods and, therefore, repatriated 49,500 dollars to India after getting permission of Reserve Bank of India. This resulted in surplus on account of fluctuation in exchange rate. The question arose whether such surplus was capital receipt or revenue receipt. The Apex Court held -
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commr. Of Income Tax, West Bengal, ... on 27 September, 1978
13. The next judgment of the Apex Court is Sutlej Cotton Mils Ltd. v. CIT 116 ITR 1. Their Lordships, after referring to various judgments including the one referred to in the preceding para, held as under:
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat on 31 March, 1989
15. However, the above finding, in our opinion, still does not resolve the controversy before us since payment for use of technology is not always on revenue account. This aspect of the matter can be explained with reference to two judgments of the Apex Court. The first judgment is reported as Alembic Chemical Works v. CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC). In that case, the company was engaged in the business of manufacturing of antibiotics and pharmaceuticals. The company, with a view to increase the yield, entered into and agreement with Japanese company for supply of knowhow for its use in the manufacturing process against lump sum payment. The question arose whether the payment was on revenue account or capital account. Their Lordships held that since use of knowhow was in the course of existing business of manufacturing of medicines, the payment was on revenue account.
M/S. Jonas Woodhead & Sons Ltd., Madras vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 11 February, 1997
The other judgment is reported as Jonas Woodhead and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 224 ITR 342 (SC). In that case also, the technical knowhow was obtained for use by assessee but it was to be used in setting up of the plant.