Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.48 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. vs M/S Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co. ... on 8 November, 2012 cites

Cit vs M/S Srf Ltd. on 4 August, 2011

9. Shri Dhananjay Awasthi appearing for the revenue submits that the Tribunal was not justified in observing that the effect of the higher claim of depreciation on the revalued assets would get set off against the like amount transferred from the revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss accounts. He submits that depreciation on revalued asset is not permissible for computation of income under Section 115J of the Act. He has relied upon CIT v. SRF Ltd., (2012) 342 ITR 106 (Delhi) in which it was held after referring to the scheme of Chapter XII-B by which minimum alternate tax (in short MAT) was introduced to get over the situation whereby the companies, which were otherwise earning large profits and distributing huge amounts in the form of dividend to its shareholders were paying no tax or negligent amount of tax by virtue of deduction and exemptions made available to them under various provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs C.I.T,New Delhi on 5 January, 2011

Relying on Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) the Delhi High Court observed that the legislature in the scheme introduced for MAT companies devised methodology whereby atleast 30% of the book profits was made taxable. In reply to the submissions as to whether depreciation can be allowed to revaluation reserve, the Delhi High Court held that where credit is made to the profit and loss accounts in the first instance at the time of creation of the reserve, the book profit would stand increased and consequently any withdrawal from the revaluation reserve would stand squared of by reducing the amount from the book profit. Since that situation did not arise in the case considered by the Delhi High Court it was held that the assessee cannot be allowed reduction in the amount and relied upon the Explanation (i) appended to Clause 115J dealing with situation, where some delinquent companies were taking advantage by reducing their net profit by the amount withdrawn from the reserve created or provision made in the same year itself, though reserve, when created was not added to the book profit. Explanation (i) was to apply to amount withdrawn from the reserves or provision only if reserves were created before April 1st, 1988. The Court did not accept the contention that it is only when the Proviso is attracted that the assessee would be disabled from seeking reduction in terms of Clause (i) to the Explanation appended to Section 115J even though reserve, when created or provision made did not get reflected in the profit and loss accounts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 109 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1