Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.73 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs India Steamship Co. Ltd. on 16 January, 1992
It is seen from the facts involved in the case of India Steamship Co. Ltd. (supra), that the assessee had claimed development rebate on the entire cost of the two ships, including the interest on funds borrowed and guarantee commission paid for obtaining loans. However, in the present case, before us, the assessee is not claiming capitalisation of the amount of interest paid by it but is claiming it as a deduction under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii). This shows that the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and other decisions whereby the claim of the assessee for capitalisation of the amount of interest paid on loans before the capital assets were first put to use was allowed, cannot be applied in the present case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii vs Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. on 21 November, 1975
Ltd.'s case (supra), Alembic Glass Industries Ltd's case (supra), Challapalli Sugars Ltd. 's case (supra), India Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) and submitted that in the case of the assessee company, the facts were in pari materia with the facts in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) and that the assessee-company had been engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement at its Dalmiapuram Works and 'Dead-burnt' Magnesite at its Salem Works for several decades. It was further mentioned that the company undertook the modernisation of its cement plant in order to increase its productivity and operational efficiency. It was further mentioned that the machinery and plant installed in the process of modernisation was an integral part of its pre-existing cement works and that similar was position in respect of the beneficiation plant set up by the company in its industrial unit at Salem for manufacture of dead burnt magnesite from raw magnesite ore.
Madhav Prasad Jatia vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P., ... on 17 April, 1979
(7) Madhav Prasad Jatia's case (supra);
India Cements Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1965
Ltd.'s case (supra), Alembic Glass Industries Ltd's case (supra), Challapalli Sugars Ltd. 's case (supra), India Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) and submitted that in the case of the assessee company, the facts were in pari materia with the facts in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) and that the assessee-company had been engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement at its Dalmiapuram Works and 'Dead-burnt' Magnesite at its Salem Works for several decades. It was further mentioned that the company undertook the modernisation of its cement plant in order to increase its productivity and operational efficiency. It was further mentioned that the machinery and plant installed in the process of modernisation was an integral part of its pre-existing cement works and that similar was position in respect of the beneficiation plant set up by the company in its industrial unit at Salem for manufacture of dead burnt magnesite from raw magnesite ore.
Calico Dyeing And Printing Works vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 25 February, 1965
(1) Calico Dyeing & Printing Works case (supra);
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Aniline Dyestuffs & Pharmaceuticals P. ... on 11 September, 1981
CIT v. Aniline Dyestuffs & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. [1982] 138 ITR 843 (Bom.).
Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
3.2 With reference to the second argument of the assessee, the CIT observed that there was nothing to show that the AO had called for details of interest on term loans for the period prior to the commissioning of the new projects and the subsequent period. He further observed that the assessee had also not furnished any such details. He, therefore, held that on the basis of the figures of interest paid on fixed deposit, term loans, etc., it could not be said that the AO had applied his mind to the question whether or not the interest paid on term loans for acquiring and installing new machinery, etc., prior to its commissioning was a capital expenditure and had to be treated as part of "actual cost" for the purposes of depreciation etc. He held that apparently, the AO had failed to apply his mind and make enquiries which were called for with regard to the treatment of interest on term loans. The CIT also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions reported in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323, wherein it was held that the Commissioner may consider the order of ITO to be erroneous not only if it contained some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of facts on the face of it but also because it was a stereo-typed order which simply accepted what the assessee had stated in his return and failed to make enquiries which were called for in the circumstances of the case.
Tara Devi Aggarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 27 November, 1972
3.2 With reference to the second argument of the assessee, the CIT observed that there was nothing to show that the AO had called for details of interest on term loans for the period prior to the commissioning of the new projects and the subsequent period. He further observed that the assessee had also not furnished any such details. He, therefore, held that on the basis of the figures of interest paid on fixed deposit, term loans, etc., it could not be said that the AO had applied his mind to the question whether or not the interest paid on term loans for acquiring and installing new machinery, etc., prior to its commissioning was a capital expenditure and had to be treated as part of "actual cost" for the purposes of depreciation etc. He held that apparently, the AO had failed to apply his mind and make enquiries which were called for with regard to the treatment of interest on term loans. The CIT also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions reported in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323, wherein it was held that the Commissioner may consider the order of ITO to be erroneous not only if it contained some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of facts on the face of it but also because it was a stereo-typed order which simply accepted what the assessee had stated in his return and failed to make enquiries which were called for in the circumstances of the case.
State Of Madras vs C. J. Coelho on 30 April, 1964
(2) G. J. Coelho's case (supra);