Civil Appeals Nos 6082, 6083, 6084, 6085 and 6086 of 1990 and 5516 of 1997 (Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1983 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos 1065-69 of 1977 and 1070-74 of 1977),
The scheme of the IT Act, 1961, shows that the firm and its partners are treated as two separate legal entities so far as the provisions of tax law are concerned. While framing an order of assessment under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, the firm and its partners are to be treated as two separate legal entities and payment of interest to a firm cannot be treated in the tax law as payment of interest to its partners.
SEN, J. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether a sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing Debenture Redemption Reserve was includible in computing the capital of the assessee Company for the purpose of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The High Court took the view that the amount set apart to redeem the debentures has to be treated as ‘provision’ and not as ‘reserve’.
Since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs 3,00,000 in that accounting year This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year
Dismissing the appeal filled by the Revenue and the cross appeal of the assessee, this Court HELD : 1.1. An educational society or Trust or other similar body running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profits could be regarded as `other educational institution’ coming within Section 10(22) of the Act. [954-F]
The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the amount collected as per the direction given in the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, is also entitled to be deducted as revenue expenditure, while computing the total income of the assessee. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee
In this case the assessee was denied exemption on the investments made with Delhi Development Authority. However, relief was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. It was held that section 54 of the Act of 1961 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house
The special excise duty was being levied from 1963 upto 1971 by various Finance Acts passed from time to time. It was discontinued from 1972 until 1978 when it was revived by the Finance Act, 1978. Thereafter, it was being levied from year to year by annual Finance Acts.The provisions of these Finance Acts,insofar as the levy of special excise duty is concerned,are identical
Satish Chandra Gupta Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Delhi): Relief granted for delayed house construction under Section 54 due to reasons beyond the assessee’s control.
There is no mention of ‘fair market value’ in section 50(1); besides that the adjustments stated there are with reference to the written down value only which has nothing to do with the fair market value, and therefore, where the capital asset purchased by the assessee is a depreciable or non-depreciable asset, the assessee will have the option for substituting for its actual cost of acquisition its fair market value as on 1-1-1954 but where it is a depreciable asset and the assessee has enjoyed depreciable allowance, its cost of acquisition shall have to be determined as provided in section 50 – Commonwealth Trust Ltd. v. CIT
