Sec. 43(3)

Sec. 43(3), Section 32, Section 33, Section 43

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cinema building and the tube lights together with fittings do not constitute plant within the meaning of s. 43(3) of the IT Act, 1961, and, consequently, the assessee was not entitled to development rebate thereon and depreciation at 10per cent on building ?

/

High Court Of Allahabad S.K. Tulsi And Sons vs. CIT Sections 32, 33, 43(3) B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. & S.C. […]

Sec. 32(1)(ii), Sec. 43(3), Section 32

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee-company of Rs. 6,00,000 and of Rs. 24,54,303 in terms of the ‘Polysterene Plant Contract’ of January 18, 1956, read with the agreement of September 20, 1955, and Dow Styrene Process Plant agreement of August 15, 1960, respectively, resulted in its acquiring a ‘plant’ as defined in s. 43(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on which depreciation is properly allowable under s. 32(1) (ii) of the said Act for each of the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1970-71 both inclusive ?

/

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Polychem Ltd. Sections 32(1)(ii), 43(3) Asst. Year 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 S.P. Bharucha &

Sec. 43(3), Section 33, Section 43

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to higher rebate on all its automobile ancillaries including those utilised by it in the assembling of its own cars and in that view allowing a higher rebate at 25per cent for the asst. yr. 1971-72 ?

/

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. Sections 33(1)(b), 33, 43(3) Asst. Year 1971-72 Dipak Kumar Sen, Actg.

Sec. 40(c), Sec. 43(3), Section 43

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reimbursement by the assessee of the medical expenses incurred by its employees did not result directly or indirectly in the provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisite to the employees within the meaning of s. 40(c)(iii) of the IT Act 1961 ?

/

High Court Of Calcutta Simon Carves India Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 40(c), 43(1) Asst. Year 1967-68 Sabyasachi Mukharji & C.K.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security