COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation on the roads as well as development rebate in regard to the transport viz., tractor, trailer etc. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but the same having been dismissed by the Tribunal, filed an application under Section 256(2

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 1, BOMBAY

In the result, Transferred Cases No

256(2) of the Act was filed before the High Court of Kerala which was rejected by order dated 7.1.1985. That order is challenged in this appeal. S.L.P.(C) No. 324/1997 Leave granted. In this appeal also, the assessee Hotel Shashi Private Ltd., a company engaged in the business of running a hotel named the Valley View Resort situated

M/S. G.K. CHOKSI & CO. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

depreciation @ 40% for the building erected by the appellant for the residential purposes of its employees. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal reversed the order passed

SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING M.LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order

depreciation from Straight Line Method to Written Down Value Method and, therefore, the judgment of this Court in Apollo Tyres case was not applicable. We have referred to the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6 3 submissions of both sides on merits with which we are strictly not concerned. In this case we are only concerned

UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALCUTTA

In the result, we hold that both the High Courts were right in answering

Section 256(2) of the Act, the High Court directed the Tribunal to draw up statement of case and refer the aforementioned question to it. On February 6, 1992 the High Court answered the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, as noted above. Mr. M.L.Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee

THE INDIAN TUBE COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

256 (1) of the Act and Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 (for ‘Sur-tax Act’) on the question of law which was answered in negative and against the appellant thus : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court (along with another question not relevant for this case) : "(2) Whether, on (he facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital subsidy of Rs, 7,58,000 received by the assessee should be deducted

EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

256(2) of the Income Tax Act, two questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court viz.: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the Commissioner of Income-tax’s Order Under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S TRANVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applied to surtax by Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 the questions that arose for consideration of the High Court were: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loan redemption reserve amount