Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.19 seconds)Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. East India Pharmaceutical Works ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. West Bengal on 11 March, 1997
Respectfully following
the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Zandu
Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd (supra), we hold that the sums of rupees
for Rs.4.25 crores and Rs.1.96 crores has to be shown under
corporate division and the excess along with other corporate expenses
has been rightly been allocated to the 3 manufacturing units by the
assessee."
Rain Cii Carbon (India) Limited, ... vs Dcit, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad on 26 April, 2017
17. Now coming to the issue, whether such capital receipt
in the form of excise duty refund should be treated as part
income while computing book profit u/s.115JB. Ld. CIT(A)
I.T.As. No.5124/Del/2011, 92/Del/2012, 144, 475, 4426 & 4906/Del/2013 17
has held assessee is not entitled to the exclusion of the said
amount following the judgment of ITAT Hyderabad in the case
of Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2014] 149 ITD 732
(Hyd.).
Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 11 August, 1970
• Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC)
• CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj
• Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom)
• CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)"
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on 23 October, 2001
• Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC)
• CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj
• Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom)
• CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)"
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 November, 2014
• Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC)
• CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj
• Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom)
• CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)"
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
There cannot be imposition of tax without the authority of law. One
has to look what is envisaged under the Act to be taxed and there is
no room for intendment or tax authorities can capitalize on
acquiescence by assessee sans any authority by law. The court and
taxing authorities have bounden duty to decide as to whether a
particular category of assessee is to pay a particular tax or not. Even
if we agree that Assessing Officer could not have entertained such a
fresh claim but in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) as heavily relied upon by the
Ld. CIT D.R., however, it does not impinge upon the powers of the
appellate authorities including Ld. CIT (A) and Tribunal. This has been
clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in the concluding part of
the said judgment. There is no such bar or statutory restrain on the
appellate authorities to permit/entertain such additional claims which
has been raised by the assessee before them.