Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Versus M/s. Glaxo India Ltd.

2016 (10) TMI 413 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Allowability of share issue expenses incurred - whether expenses incurred are for raising capital for purchase of plant and machinery should be capitalized and depreciation be allowed on the same - Held that:- The issues raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue by order of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax VI Versus M/s. Glaxo India Ltd. [2013 (2) TMI 789 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Accrual of Income - Advance license receivable - whether to be taxed in the year in which the b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nces as well as under the duty entitlement pass book, there was no corresponding liability on the customs authorities to pass on the benefit of duty free imports to the assessee until the goods are actually imported and made available for clearance. The benefits represent, at best, a hypothetical income which may or may not materialise and its money value is therefore not the income of the assessee. - Disallowance of penalty paid to Central Excise Authorities- Held that:- The issue raised h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 12th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 1998-99. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share issue expenses incurred or raising capital for purchase of plant and machinery should be capitalized and depreciation be allowed on the same? (ii) Whether .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the year in which the benefits actually accrue after the imports are effected and not in the year in which the licence is granted tot he licensee/assessee? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest on DPEA liability is to be allowed as expenditure on year to year basis without appreciating the fact that the interest liability was neither claimed as deduction in the return of income nor claimed as expense .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no expenditure was involved in earning dividend and directing to allow deduction u/s 80M on the entire dividend income received, without appreciating the fact that deduction u/s 80M is to be allowed on net dividend only? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no expenditure was involved in earning dividend and directing to allow deduction u/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A(9) of the Income Tax Act? (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the disallowance made by him as part of profit of eligible unit on proportionate basis for the purpose of deduction u/s 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that deduction u/s 80I and 80IA of the Act cannot be allowed more than what was claimed by the assessee? (x) Whether on the facts an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer that entire Head Office Administrative expenses and interest cost be not allocated tot he Nasik Units for computing the quantum of deduction under Section 80I / 80IA for the Nasik Unit? 2. Re. question nos. (i). (ii), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi): (a) Mr. Suresh Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue very fairly states that the issues raised herein stand concluded against the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version