Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.59 seconds)
Godrej Consumer Prodjects Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 20 April, 2016 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajaram Maize Products on 23 August, 2001

while coming to such conclusion referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Rajaram Maize Products, [2001] 251 ITR 457 (SC) and observed, power subsidy is meant to enable a person meet a certain percentage of expenditure on power and is, therefore, revenue in nature. Further, it was observed, though, the subsidy is revenue in nature fact remains it not only helps in growth on industrial undertaking but also helps an industrial undertaking to earn profit and make gains. Such a subsidy though revenue in nature and taxable accordingly, is nonetheless covered by the provisions embodied in section 80IB/80IC. The High Court referring to Explanation-10 to section 43(1) held, if any portion of costs of asset is made by any subsidy grant or reimbursement, then such a subsidy grant or reimbursement would go on to reduce the costs of such asset and depreciation to the assessee will be allowed on the reduced costs. Similarly, the subsidy such as transport subsidy or power subsidy when goes on to reduce the cost of transportation of goods whether raw material or finished goods, then it will result in profit, hence, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80IB/80IC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Asea Brown Boveri Ltd vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... on 27 October, 2004

Brown Boveri Ltd. v/s Industrial Finance Corp. of India, [2006] 154 Taxman 512 (SC), the Assessing Officer held, the lease rental of ` 10,53,374, is a capital expenditure, hence, not allowable. However, he allowed depreciation @ 15% on such amount. Though, assessee challenged the disallowance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he confirmed the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 44 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006

39. We have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the case laws relied upon and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the assessment order as well as the order of the first appellate authority, assessee's claim was not considered only for the reason that it was not made through a revised return of income. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. (supra), restriction imposed therein for not entertaining a claim otherwise by way of revised return of income is 34 Godrej Consumer Products Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1246 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next