Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.28 seconds)Section 40A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 35B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 43 ITR 281. The appeal filed by the revenue on this count is dismissed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Toshiba Anand Lamps Limited on 2 July, 1982
6.4 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As per the ratio laid down by the Kerala High Court in Toshiba Anand Lamps Ltd. 's case (supra) if we take a solitary example as to the salary, leave allowance and servant allowance paid to Shri P. Adige which is at page 88 of the Paper Book, Volume II, for the assessment year 1978-79 the salary to be worked out would be Rs. 37,318. The perquisite, viz., expenditure on bungalow and 1/3rd expenditure on vehicles work out to Rs. 8,264. If we deduct 20% of the salary which is Rs. 7,464 from the value of perquisite, the amount to be disallowable would be Rs. 800. Likewise, it was calculated in respect of the other six employees in the assessment year 1978-79 which, in our opinion, is correct. Similar working was adopted for the assessment year 1979-80 and the figure is found at page 126 of the Paper Book, Vol. II for the year 1979-80 and the amount to be disallowed would be Rs. 28,446. Since the decision reported in 145 ITR 563 being the latter decision of the Kerala High Court, we prefer to follow the ratio laid down in that decision and the amount to be disallowed Under Section 40A(5) would be Rs. 2,351 for the assessment year 1978-79 and Rs. 28,446 for the assessment year 1979-80.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. on 27 November, 1981
6.3 The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, contended that the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 19 is a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court and since it is not reversed by the subsequent decision in Toshiba Anand Lamps Ltd.' case (supra) the ratio laid down in Commonwealth Trust Ltd. 's case (supra) is still a good law.
Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 July, 1984
30. Regarding the taxability of the cash compensatory support, I am of the view that it is taxable for the following reasons: The Delhi 'B' Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Gedore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and while Delhi 'A' Bench in the case of Reliance International Corp. Ltd. (supra), and also the Cochin Bench in the case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favour of the revenue. In the present case my learned brother had preferred to follow the decision of the Delhi 'B' Bench which was in favour of the assessee in preference to the later decision of the Delhi 'A' Bench referred to above. In the case decided by the Delhi 'B' Bench, that Bench did not consider the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl.