Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 115J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Commlssioner Of Income-Tax Andhra ... on 25 September, 1981
5. Shri S.N. Shrivastava, the learned departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd. (supra), he has rightly held that the two items are in the nature of reserves and has rightly invoked clause (b) of Explanation to sub-section (1A) of section 115J of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat vs Jyoti Limited on 15 February, 1996
In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that "that two items under discussion, though called as provisions, are really in the nature of reserves and hence are caught in the ambit of item (b) of the Explanation".
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 November, 2000
The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench 'C' (Third Member) in the case of Steel Authorities of India v. Dy. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Del)(TM) 849.
The Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
1