Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.54 seconds)
Dcit Circle 1, Tirupur vs Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) ... on 10 February, 2023 cites

Raghunath Rai Bareja And Another vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 6 December, 2006

"7. Similarly, there should be a literal rule of interpretation of a statute, which is the first and foremost principle of interpretation and where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule and even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative event and even assuming there is a defect or any omission in the words used in the legislation, the court cannot correct or make up the deficiency, especially when a literal reading thereof produces an intelligible result and any departure from the literal rule would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible and which would be destructive of judicial discipline, vide Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank [2007] 135 Comp Cas 163 (SC) ; [2007] 2 SCC 230.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 277 - M Katju - Full Document

M/S Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Through ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Trichur ... on 10 October, 2017

16. The case law of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 392 ITR 628 (SC) (as referred to by Ld. CIT-DR) is a case wherein a firm as owner of the land constructed hospital building. The firm leased the land to a tenant who reimbursed the cost of construction of building and claimed depreciation thereon. In this context, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the tenant would not be eligible for depreciation as per Explanation 1 to section 32(1) on the expenditure incurred towards construction of building since only when the assessee holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to and by way of renovation or extension of or improvement to the building and the expenditure on construction is incurred by the assessee, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has denied the claim of depreciation for the reason that where construction was not carried out by assessee himself, said explanation to section 32 would not come to the aid of assessee for claiming depreciation. However, in the present case, the assessee has already been found eligible to claim depreciation @10% by invoking Explanation-1 to Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S Shree Balaji Alloys vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 31 January, 2010

It was thus held by Hon'ble Court that purpose test would be of paramount importance to determine the nature of subsidy. This decision has subsequently been followed by Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. vs CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K) which held that the incentives provided to the industrial unit with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated industrial development would be capital in nature. This decision has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as 138 DTR 36 (SC).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 349 - Full Document

Hyundai Motor India Limited, ... vs Acit Ltu-2, Chennai on 1 September, 2021

10. So far as the decision of this Tribunal in Hyundai Motor India Ltd vs. ACIT (supra) is concerned, the same deal with a case of Focus Market Scheme (FMS). The objective of this scheme is to offset high freight cost and other externalities to select international market with a view to enhance export competitiveness in outside countries. It is a case 9 wherein a finding has been rendered that the assessee received duty credit scrip benefit to offset cost incurred for exploring new market including higher freight cost and other recurring expenses like sales promotion expenses including manpower cost of staff employed in marketing department. These expenses are generally revenue in nature and therefore, the receipt thereof was held to be revenue in nature. However, in assessee's case, the incentive has been received under Focus Product Scheme (FPS) the objective of which is to weed out infrastructure inefficiencies which is in capital field. Therefore, this case law is distinguishable on facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Narayan Industires , New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 60(1), New Delhi on 30 June, 2022

12. We further find that the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Narayan Industries vs. ACIT (ITA No.6153/Del/2017 dated 30.05.2022), as referred to by Ld. AR, has also been rendered in the context of Focus 10 Product Scheme. In this decision, the bench held that the receipts would be capital in nature. While concluding so, the bench applied 'purpose test' laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. It was finally held by the bench that receipts would be capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision also supports the case of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 11 November, 1954

"6. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34. In that case, the appellant-company 14 had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain limestone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor undertook not to grant to any person any lease, permit or prospecting licence for limestone. This court examined tests laid down in various cases for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 406 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next