Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 April, 1978
However, learned counsel faintly attempted to contend that the second question referred to us may not fall within the ratio of decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT .
Section 80I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) ... on 16 September, 1976
The basis of the rectification order is the decision in CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (I) Ltd. which, as noticed earlier, has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 and when the basis upon which the rectification was done is no longer available, it follows that the rectified order cannot also be sustained. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary to render any answer with reference to the first question, as that question does not really survive for consideration in the light of the answer given to the second question referred to us. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to answer the first question and return the reference unanswered in so far as it relates to the first question. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii vs Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. ... on 24 December, 1975
In CIT v. Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 744 (Guj), the assessee maintained that the deduction of 8 per cent., under section 80E of the Act, should be made from the profits and gains attributable to the business of generation or distribution of electricity without making any deduction on account of depreciation or development rebate under sections 32 and 33 of the Act; but the court rejected this plea and held that the unabsorbed depreciation and the development rebate relating to the specified industry have to be first deducted in computing deduction of 8% under section 80E of the Act.
Indian Transformers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 January, 1972
This had also been reiterated by stating that in computing the total income of the concerned assessee, items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate will have to be deducted before arriving at the figure that will become exigible to tax at 8% contemplated by section 80E(1) of the Act Referring to the decision in Indian Transformers Ltd. v. CIT , relied on by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and CIT v. L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (I) Ltd. , relied on by the Tribunal in its rectification order dated February 25, 1978, the Supreme Court, at pages 96 and 98, has observed that the view taken in those cases about the non-deductibility of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed loss of earlier years, runs counter to the legislative mandate contained in the three steps required to be taken under sub-section (1) of section 80E (corresponding to section 80-I of the Act) and that having regard to the impact of section 72(1) of the Act upon the computation under the head "Profits and gains of business", the contention that the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed loss should be held to be not deductible before working out the 8% deduction cannot be accepted but such items will have to be deducted in arriving at the figure which would be exigible to deduction at 8%.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii vs Amul Transmission Line Hardware Pvt. ... on 26 December, 1975
4. We find that in the first order of the Tribunal dated August 27, 1977, it had applied the decision in CIT v. Amul Transmission Line Hardware P. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 771 (Guj) as well as other decisions to hold that the carried forward loss should be first deducted form the income received by the assessee from the priority industry and then relief under section 80-I should be worked out and granted.
C.I.T. (Central), Madras vs Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball, ... on 15 July, 1986
In CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that for the purpose of granting relief to an industry under section 80E of the Act, an account must be taken when computing the profits and gains attributable to that industry of the a balancing charge worked out under sub-section (2) of section 41 as well as the items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate carried forward from earlier years, but that for the purpose of section 80E of the Act, such unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate should appear to relate to the same business and that were was no indication in that case that any of them related to any business or industry different from that, whose profits and gains from the subject-matter of the computation under section 80E of the Act.