cites: 235370

Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 December, 1993

According to learned standing counsel, the Bombay High Court was not correct in stating in Somaiya Organo-Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT , that the question of ownership of the fund is not relevant.

Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 26 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs New Horizon Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. on 27 October, 1998

Civil appeal preferred against the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in CIT v. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. has been dismissed [(2004) 269 ITR 397 (SC)]

Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - R J Babu - Full Document

Associated Power Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 November, 1995

Therefore, the assessed is having control and domain over the contingency reserve created according to the statute. After the amount was realised, the assessed was asked to create a contingency reserve, as against the facts arising in the present case where the assessed was directed to collect separately the amount for molasses storage fund, over which the assessed has no control or domain. Further, since it is not a provision for known or existing liabilities, the amount appropriated to the contingency reserve is not deductible as business expenditure according to the Supreme Court. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Associated Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT , will not be applicable to the facts arising in this case.

Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 65 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. on 10 September, 1996

6. We would like to quote the relevant portion from the case of CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) as the issue has been elaborately dealt in that case. The relevant portion of which reads as under :

Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane ... on 16 October, 1992

4. It is also indicated by the learned counsel that the SLP preferred by the Revenue in the case of CIT v. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. and CIT v. Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane were dismissed.

Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 1675

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mathurantakam Co-Operative Sugar ... on 18 December, 1997

6. CIT v. Madurantakam Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 388 (Mad);

Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Cit vs Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd on 11 September, 2001

7. CIT v. Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. .

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Ambur Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. on 2 April, 1980

5. The learned counsel has placed before us a copy of the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2499 of 1998 in the case of CIT v. Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. and other matters decided on 28th Aug., 2001. The Supreme Court made an order which is as under:

Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sakthi Sugars Ltd. on 14 November, 1997

5. CIT v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 166 (Mad);

Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results