Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
India Cements Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1965
In respect of that provision, the law as it existed at
ITA 271/2005 Page 7 of 8
the relevant time i.e. in A.Y. 2000-01, was governed by India Cements
Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 60 ITR 52 which held that there
can be no distinction between expenditure of one kind or the other, when
it came to borrowed funds and the treatment of interest thereon.
Consequently, this question of law has to be and is answered against the
Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Associate Techno Plastics P. Ltd. on 21 November, 2013
5. In this Court‟s opinion the ITAT‟s findings cannot be faulted given
that almost 19% of the investments of one lender and over 30% of the
business activities of the other lending company, fell within the
expression mentioned in proviso (i) to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The
test of substantiality, in our opinion, is not confined to what the RBI
declares it to be, generally. There can be NDFC and NBFC - i.e. an entity
ITA 271/2005 Page 3 of 8
which may carry out more than one financial non-banking activity. In the
present case too these companies carry on more than one non-banking
financial activity - up to 3 or 4. In such event, the 50% test to benchmark
whether the amounts fall within or outside the 2 nd proviso to Section
2(22)(e) of the Act would fail. This Court notices that this view is
reflected in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of
Income Tax vs. Parle Plastics Ltd., 332 ITR 63 (Bom).
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
Section 38 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. ... on 30 April, 2007
10. On this issue we notice that three amounts were sought to be
disallowed by the AO. The first item pertains to expenditure incurred by
the assessee for the construction of a hotel in Sri Nagar. In appeal the CIT
noticed that the assessee had conceded to a ratio of 75%:25%, as
constituting the capital and Revenue streams and confirmed such
treatment. The Revenue appealed against this decision to the ITAT which
dismissed it, by a separate order of 02.06.2006. That order was the
subject matter of an appeal (by the Revenue) being Commissioner of
Income Tax vs. Bharat Hotels Limited, ITA 62 of 2007. In the judgment
of 31.07.2015 the ITAT‟s decision was upheld. As a consequence, the
question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the
Revenue (which has appealed against the rejection in the appeal filed by
the assessee).
1