Advanced Search Results

Assam Brook Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : ExciseCivil

Acts : Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 3 and 5A; Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978; Finance Act, 1978 - Sections 32(4); Finance Act, 2002; Finance Act, 2003 - Sections 157 and 157(3); Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 8 and 8(1); Punjab Sales Tax Act

time) on manufacturers of tyres, special excise duty @ 5% of the basic duty was imposed by the Finance Act, 1978. Two exemption Notifications under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules (corresponding to Section 5A of the present … The Apex Court answered the question in the negative holding that in view of the provisions of Section 32(4) of the Finance Act, 1978, the source of power to exempt the special duty would be traceable to

Ram Nath Jindal Vs. Cit

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2001)170CTR(P& H)251

has not been claimed by the assessee. This position is further obvious from the fact that in the Finance Act, 2001, Explnation 5 has been inserted in section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 1-4-2002. It has been inter alia … cases may be briefly noticed.Mr. Ram Nath Jindal had purchased truck No. HRN 345 in the assessment year 1978-79 for Rs, 62,000. He had sold for Rs. 64,300 and claimed depreciation @ 30 per cent. This claim

Assistant Collector of Customs (imports) Vs. Sundaram Textiles

Court : Chennai

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Reported in : 1990(25)ECC392; 1989(25)LC470(Madras); 1989(44)ELT464(Mad)

Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and an auxiliary duty of 20 per cent leviable under Section 32(1) of the finance Act 1976, together with an additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1976. However, by

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abraham

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 33(2), 73(2) and 77(2)

Reported in : 2004(2)KLT585

farther submitted that in view of the circular dated 27.3.2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) in the Central Board of Direct Taxes stipulating that appeal or reference to the High … Senior Central Government Standing Counsel (Taxes) appearing for the applicant submitted that a reading of the provisions of Section 32 (1) and (2) along with Sections 72(2) and 73(1) would show that the share of the unabsorbed depreciation … the following question of law under S. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for decision by this Court at the … partner of the very same firm, M/s.Anthraper Industries, for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessee-partner's claim for carried forward and consequential set

Ram Nath Jindal and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 16, 32, 32(1), 34, 37, 41(2) and 143(1); Finance Act, 2001

Reported in : [2001]252ITR590(P& H)

has not been claimed by the assessee. This position is further obvious from the fact that in the Finance Act, 2001, Explanation 5 has been inserted in Section 32(1)(ii) with effect from April 1, 2002. It has been, … briefly noticed. 3. Mr. Ram Nath Jindal had purchased a truck No. HRN 345 in the assessment year 1978-79 for Rs. 62,000. He had sold it for Rs. 64,300 and claimed depreciation at 30 per cent. This

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reunion Engineering Co. (P) Ltd

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32(1) and 34

Reported in : (1994)116CTR(Bom)195; [1993]203ITR274(Bom)

on the ground that it was an 'industrial company' within the meaning of section 2(9)(c) of the relevant finance Act and a small scale industrial undertaking within the meaning of Explanation (3) to section 32(1)(vi) of the Act. … this connection, the Tribunal referred to the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated February 17, 1978, wherein the authorities under the Act were advised to take a liberal approach in interpreting the expression 'industrial

Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Chd.)404

allowance. The apex Court declared the law by the aforesaid decision by its judgment dt. 15th March, 2000. Section 32 was amended by the Finance Act, 2001. Explanation 5 was added which provided that depreciation would be allowed … submissions as to how claim of depreciation could be revised during such proceedings. Explanation 5 inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, is also of no help to the appellant. It has been held by the Hon'ble Kerala High … reframing the set aside assessment. In support thereof, he has relied on 1978 AIR SC 597, in the case of Rakesh C. Rastogi and Anr.

Sri Ramalinga Mills (Cbe) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Assistant Collector of ...

Court : Kerala

Subject : Customs

Reported in : 1988(14)LC264(Kerala); 1990(21)LC364(Kerala)

Customs Tariff Act. An auxiliary duty at 20 per cent was also levied under Section 32(1) of the Finance Act, 1978. The importers claimed exemption from the aforesaid duties as per notifications issued by the Government of India under

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bachraj Dugar

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 35CCA

observations made by the Tribunal are wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. Section 35CCA was inserted by the Finance Act, 1978. It is evident therefrom that, before any deduction could be made in respect of donation, certain conditions, as … represented wholly or partly by an asset, no deduction shall be allowed under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1)of Section 32 for the same or any other previous year in respect of that asset.' In our opinion, the said

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiva Prasad Bagaria

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32(2) and 72(1)

Reported in : [1991]191ITR139(Cal)

of the decisions which this court considered and approved is in the case of CIT v. Estate and Finance Ltd. : [1978]111ITR119(Bom) .8. Mr. Mitra has drawn our attention to a decision of the Bombay High Court … the income from another firm, Partabmull Poonamchand, and the balance depreciation of Rs. 2,58,594 was carried forward under Section 32(2) read with Section 72(2) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee claimed carry forward