Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 361 to 364 of 364 Records

• 1995 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Expenditure, Commencement Of Business, Fluctuation In Rate, Foreign Exchange, Revenue Expenditure

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Concessional Rate, Industrial Company

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1993 204 ITR 412, yet it would not have any bearing on the facts of this case. There the finding was that the assessee-company was a firm of contractors constituted for the purpose of construction of a dam in Orissa. The contention there was that the activity of constructing a dam was an industrial activity and the company was an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80HH. The Orissa High Court had taken the view that it was an industrial undertaking and that was reversed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, that decision does not directly apply to the facts of the present case where there is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee-company was carrying on manufacturing activities. In this view of the matter, we need not go into the other decisions cited by learned counsel for the Revenue. The question referred by us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The referred case is accordingly answered.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Development Allowance, Sales Promotion, Weighted Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... a. This would certainly be the amount of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the promotion of sales outside India, on maintenance of agency outside India. Under the said sub-clause, it is not necessary that the assessee would get the benefit of weighted deduction only if a branch or office is maintained outside India. But that benefit the assessee would get, even if the work of promotion of sale is done through agency. Similar view is taken by-- (1) The Calcutta High Court, in the case of CIT v. Chloride India Ltd. 1992 193 ITR 355 (2) The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Pooppally Foods 1986 161 ITR 729 and (3) The Kerala High Court in the case of Srivilas Cashew Co. v. CIT 1992 196 ITR 887. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the question raised in the present reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 1 - SC ORDER
  

  Concealment of stock - petitioners are liable to pay the tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the tax of Rs. 3,54,864 on the basis of the concealed stock of the value of Rs. 4,93,177 which was the value of the stock as estimated earlier under his order of March 28, 1985. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.

  ---

1 ....1516171819