Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 March, 2012 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Vinbros And Company on 29 October, 2007

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income showing income of ` 1,06,74,516/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB for ` 47,36,690/-. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Vinbros & Co in Tax Case Appeal No.1361 and 1362 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007 has held that the activity of making liquor from rectified spirit is manufacturing and accordingly, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of :- 6 -: I.T.A.No. 81/Mds/11 CO 58/Mds/11 the assessee only on the ground that the Department has not accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Vinbros & co. (supra) and has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court there against.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 21 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 August, 2007

12. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed from the return of income that the assessee has not deducted TDS from royalty payment of ` 5,45,19,462/-. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that operational support cost was not an expenditure subject to TDS and filed before the Assessing Officer a certificate from the Chartered Accountant who had opined that the agreement embodies a conducting arrangement in respect of liquor manufacture and the payment was a composite and indivisible whole in consideration of the company being permitted to conduct the business and that it is not a payment warranting deduction of TDS. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226(S.C) and CBDT Circular on provisions of TDS reported in 276 ITR (St) 151 to 165. The assessee further submitted that in any event it is a direct cost and hence, section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that it was a payment for royalty and the assessee ought to have deducted TDS. Since the TDS was not deducted, the expenditure was disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the income of the assesse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 479 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next