Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.09 seconds)Section 155 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dalmia Magnesite Corporation on 2 November, 1977
The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that the amendment was only for the purpose of chargeability to tax under the head 'Capital gains arising on transfer of capital assets'. Therefore the Legislature itself intended that the word 'transfer' as defined in Section 47 is applicable only for the limited purpose of capital gains and not otherwise. Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 defines 'transfer' in widest terms. This definition was not resorted to by the Madras High Court while deciding the question of withdrawal of development rebate in the case of Dalmia Magnesite Corpn. (supra) but considered the question only with reference to the provisions of Section 34(3)(a), which were held to be clear and do not suffer from any ambiguity. In that case while dealing with the question in TC No. 146 of 1974 the Madras High Court observed as follows :
Section 43 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahabir Cold Storage on 11 September, 1974
7. Applying the aforesaid principle laid down by the Courts, we are of the opinion that the authorities were justified in withdrawing the development rebate. In this connection it is necessary to point out that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is not directly applicable to the facts of the case and is not helpful to the assessee. Even the intention of the Legislature relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is relevant only for the purpose of capital gains under Section 45 and not for the purpose of Section 155(5). Further, the provisions of Section 155(5) contain a non obstante clause whereby the development rebate originally granted shall be deemed to have been wrongly allowed and the Income-tax Officer may notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Act recompute the total income of the assessee for the relevant previous year and make the necessary amendment. Therefore, the non obstante clause overrides any other definition of transfer contained in any other section of the Act. Consequently the question is to be decided only within the framework of the relevant sections dealing with development rebate or investment allowance and in the light of the judgment of the several Courts in this regard. In this view of the matter we uphold the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) as they are justified in law. In the result the appeals are dismissed.