PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

disallowed it as allowance under section 37(1) of I.T. Act. Out of the entertainment, expenses, amounting to Rs.3865 incurred by the Directors of the assessee company, for entertainment at the Diners club and C.C.1, the I.T.O. regarded Rs.1365 only as permissible deduction under section 37(2) of I.T. Act, taking the view that the remaining sum of Rs.2500

DEVI CINE PROJECTOR MANUFACTURINGCO., ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Disallowance of interest---Firm paying interest to partner--Partner also paying interest to firm on borrowing from firm--Whether such interest to be confined only to net amount after setting off interest paid by partner. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136---Special Leave Petitions filed against High Coun’s rejection of assessee’s applications under Section 256(2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

256(2) 73 of the Act seeking a reference on the question mentioned hereinbefore. The High Court by the judgment under appeal after referring to the facts mentioned hereinbefore was of the view that no question of law arose in this case. The High Court opined in the impugned judgment that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee acted

M/S.PREMIER BREVERIES LTD.KARNATAKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

Section Page 2 JUDGMENT Page 2 of 18 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) the questions reframed by the High Court have been answered against the appellant- assessee and in favour of the revenue. The question decided by the High Court and relevant to the present appeal relates

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Section 256 (2) in the High Court. In this petition paragraph 7 it has been stated as under:- "so far as question No. 2 is concerned, the department has since decided not to pursue the matter further. In the prayer clause also the direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law was made

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

256 provides for reference to the High Court on questions of law whereas Section 257 provides for statement of a case to Supreme Court directly in certain situations. After the receipt of the opinion of the High Court of Supreme Court, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal shall have to pass orders as are necessary to dispose

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY. vs. M/S. INDIAN ENGG. & COM.CORP. P. LTD

Accordingly fail and are dismissed

disallowed the same applying section 40 (a) (v) for the year 1971-72 and section 40 (A) (5) for the assessment year 1972- 73. Which are the concerned assessment years herein. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that commission on sales cannot betreated as perquisites. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The question before this court was whether

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

256 CITATOR INFO : R 1960 SC1175 (9) APL 1962 SC1272 (4) F 1965 SC1358 (18) F 1967 SC 415 (7,8) RF 1972 SC1004 (82) RF 1975 SC1758 (18) R 1979 SC 117 (8) R 1985 SC 582 (32) RF 1989 SC1737 (7) RF 1992 SC 1 (75) ACT: Income Tax-Business Loss-Set off-Profits made in Travancore State

ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

256), Anglo-Persian Oil Co. v. Dale ( [1932] 1 K.B. 124), Golden Horse Shoe (New) Ltd. v. Thurgood (H. M. Inspector of Taxes), ( [1933]18 T.C. 280). Van Den Berghs, Limited v. Clark (H. M. Inspector of Taxes) (I 19341 19 T.C. 390), Tata Hydro- Electric Agencies, Limited, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,BOMBAY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

The appeal is allowed

Disallowance of the balance of the tax refund was quite in order because they did not come out of the assets which were included in the surplus of the earlier inter valuation period." The above-quoted question was referred to the High- Court for its decision at the instance of the assessee Corporation, under Section 256(1) of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

256(2). It appears that the Tribunal did not examine the claim of the assessee by reference to any of the sub-clauses of Section 35B(1) (b). No expenditure can be allowed under Section 35B generally. The assessee must be able to establish the facts to prove that the expenditure falls within the ambit of sub-clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. DELHI SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with

section 256(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). The facts of the case are these : The assessee (the respondent herein) is a public limited company. The assessee was a partner of a firm of managing agents known as M/s. Morari Lal Batra & Co. 3 (hereinafter referred to as ’the managing agency firm

M/S. WATERFALL ESTATES LTD.MADRAS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU I, MADRAS

256(1). The issue arising from questions No. 1 and 2 in short depends upon the answer to the question whether the various activities being carried on by the appellant-assessee constitute one single integrate activity or do they represent distinct business. The question of this nature, it is evident, is essential a question of fact. The statement

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TEX, MADRAS-1

Appeal is dismissed,

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in favour of the respondent. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the appellant was manufacturing coustic soda utilising billiter cells and up to the year 1956, its production capacity was 13.5 tons per day. The appellant felt the need to expand its capacity

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH [INDIA] LTD.ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

256(1) of the Income-tax Act for the consideration of the Kerala High Court: (1) "Whether Rs. 76,777/- being the surtax liability is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77?" The claim for the said deduction was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

disallowed the same as a deduction. What weighed with the AO was also the fact that the grants received from the Central Government were in the nature of a capital receipt exempt from tax. The AO noted that no deduction as sought for has been claimed in the previous assessment years. Of course, subsequently, the stand of the appellant-Corporation

ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

In the result, for the foregoing reasons the appeal

256(2) of the Act--ITA No. 24 of 1971--for a direction to the Tribunal to refer another question of law, also stated to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The question of law respecting which the supplementary reference was sought was this: "Whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to hold that