Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay-Ii vs Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. on 30 March, 1976
13. The nature of the terms "provision" and "reserve" came to the considered by this court in its aforesaid decision in the case of CIT v. Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 38. In that case Tulzapurkar J. who delivered the judgment of this court, relying on observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box company [1969] 73 ITR 53, held (p. 42 of 107 ITR):
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Parke Davis (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 24 January, 1979
11. The learned counsel for the Revenue has contended, relying on aforesaid fact, that since the balance-sheet itself refers to the said amounts as "provision for service gratuity" and since the very nature of the amount shown that it had been arrived at after some detailed calculation, the said amount could only be treated as a provision for a known or excising liability. On the other hands, learned counsel for the assessee has contended that more use of the word, "provision in connection with the said amount was not conclusive of the matter". He has further contended, relying on two decision of this court, namely, (1) in the case of CIT v. Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd [1977] 107 ITR 38, and (2) Parke Davis (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 813, that in the absence of any material on record to show that the said amount was arrived at as a result of any specific or actuarial valuation undertaken by the assessee-company, the said amount would be considered to have been set apart on an ad hoc basis and, therefore would not be considered as "provision" but would be considered only as a "reserve."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Aryodaya Ginning And Manufacturing Co. ... on 23 August, 1956
4. Admittedly, the said amount of Rs. 4,00,000 was included in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company as at June 30, 1963, in the opening balance as on July 1, 1962, of the general reserve of Rs. 17,00,000. The ITO under his surtax assessment order dated on February 7, 1968, excluded the said sum of Rs. 4,00,000 from the computation of capital as on July 1, 1962, on the ground that the necessary appropriation to the reserve was made after July 1, 1962, that is, by a resolution passed at the annual general meeting held on December 27, 1962. The AAC by his order dated September 7, 1968, sustained the said view. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however by its order dated on September 26, 1970, following the view expressed by this court inthecases of CIT v. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 145, held that for the purpose of surtax the said amount of general reserve of Rs. 40,00,000 along with the earlier general reserve of Rs. 13,00,000 was to be included in the capital as on 1st July, 1962.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jugantar P. Ltd. on 12 January, 1981
16. The learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Jugantar P. Ltd , which has taken the following view (headnote):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore, ... vs The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd on 27 April, 1971
5. The learned counsel for the parties before us are agreement that the said equation is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this High Court in the case of Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 145, as well as by a subsequent decision of the Supreme court in the case of CIT v. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 566. Both the said decision held that the appropriation by the director s or at the general meeting of the company of the amount to the reserve (in this case on December 27, 1963), later than the beginning of the accounting year (in this case in July 1, 1962), had to be treated as effective as from the beginning of the accounting year. In that views of the matter, it is not necessary to deal elaborately with the consideration of the said question. The Said question No. 1, therefore, will have to the answers in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.