Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.26 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 131 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs The Century Spinning And Manufacturing ... on 8 October, 1953
4. After stating the facts of Century Company's case, it was observed : "It was on these facts that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the assessee had not created a 'reserve' within the meaning of the Second Schedule of the Business Profits Tax Act. One fact which emerges out and has considerable significance is that in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., the proposed dividend was only earmarked for distribution. In the case before us, the proposed dividend has not only been earmarked but kept apart, kept back, stored up or relied upon for future use or advantage, as would be apparent from the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet of the company. If the amount had been only earmarked for distribution as dividend, then the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court would have prevailed. In the instant case before us, the proposed dividend has been earmarked and set apart by a definite volition by the requisite authority who had indicated the manner of the disposal or the destination. Therefore, the facts of the case before us take out a distinct and different shape from the facts which were there before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. If the assessee had only earmarked for distribution the proposed dividends the assessee would have failed, but what the assessee has done is that he has not only earmarked but kept back or set back or set apart or stored up by a definite act as indicated by the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. on 4 May, 1973
Ltd., [1973] 92 ITR 38 (All), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Periakaramalai Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 65 (Ker), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 78 (Mad), Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal Khushaldas, [1973] 93 ITR 369 (Guj).
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
Ltd., [1973] 92 ITR 38 (All), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Periakaramalai Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 65 (Ker), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 78 (Mad), Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal Khushaldas, [1973] 93 ITR 369 (Guj).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Chunilal Khushaldas on 17 March, 1972
Ltd., [1973] 92 ITR 38 (All), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Periakaramalai Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 65 (Ker), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 78 (Mad), Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal Khushaldas, [1973] 93 ITR 369 (Guj).
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... vs The Vasantha Mills Limited on 20 March, 1957
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vasantha Mills Ltd. [1957] 32 ITR 237 (Mad), First National City Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961] 42 ITR 17 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., [1966] 59 ITR 685 (SC) and Kothari Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, [1963] 48 ITR 816 (Mad)
The First National City Bank vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 6 January, 1961
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vasantha Mills Ltd. [1957] 32 ITR 237 (Mad), First National City Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1961] 42 ITR 17 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., [1966] 59 ITR 685 (SC) and Kothari Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, [1963] 48 ITR 816 (Mad)