Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (1) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 385 of 385 Records
-
1991 (1) TMI 5
Depreciation, Roads, Drains And Bridges In Factory ... ... ... ... ..... (Appeals) s decision who allowed depreciation on the additions made towards roads and drains ? The question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT V. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 23. Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (1) TMI 4
Depreciation, Investment Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... telephone system is also plant and in which we have discussed the relevant principle. Applying the said decision, we have no hesitation to affirm the view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal. The generating station will have to be treated as a plant. The question will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In respect of the two units referred to 9th and 10th units-relief under section 80J was claimed. That was not allowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that no separate accounts had been maintained. The assessee produced relevant accounts before the Commissioner, and, consequently, the relief was granted in respect of the 9th unit. It was also established that the 10th unit was commissioned during the relevant year. In these circumstances, following the decision of this court in Ravi Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 459 (Kar), the third question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. References answered accordingly.
-
1991 (1) TMI 3
Business, Income, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... er section 256(1) of the Act to state the case and to make a reference of the aforesaid question to this court and the Tribunal, by its order dated April 17, 1989, refused to make the reference and the application before it by the Revenue was rejected. We have heard Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and have gone through the order of the Tribunal and other authorities. There can be no dispute that a dispute is still going on in between the parties, Patel Holdings and the assessee, and a suit for the recovery of the aforesaid amount has also been filed against the assessee which is pending in the Bombay High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the case and we decline to call for the statement of facts and the application is, therefore, rejected. Anyhow, in future, if the suit is decided in favour of the assessee, the Revenue will be free to include the aforesaid amount as income of the assessee.
-
1991 (1) TMI 2
In view of the decision of this court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, the assessee-respondent is not entitled to the refund which has been granted by the High Court u/r 19A(3)
-
1991 (1) TMI 1
Whether in an appeal filed under section 248, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to deal with the quantum of the sum chargeable under the provision of the said Act from which the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 195 thereof - held that AAC's right is not restricted to total denial; but covers partial denial also with reference to payment subjected to deduction of tax at source.
....
|
|