Section 80J

Sec. 35(1)(iv), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40(c), Section 33, Section 35, Section 37, Section 40, Section 80J

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961, and r. 19A of the IT Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exclusion of borrowed capital from the computation of capital employed in two new industrial undertakings for the purpose of section 80J was not at all justified ?

/

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. Sections 35, 80J, 35(1)(iv), 37(1), 32, 33, 40(a)(v), 40(c) Asst. Year

Section 32, Section 33, Section 80J

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only a part of the expenses during construction, namely, 1,65,707 out of Rs. 2,79,847, was eligible for capitalisation and formed part of the actual cost of the assets eligible for depreciation, development rebate, etc., and that the full amount as allowed by the AAC was not available for capitalisation ?

/

High Court Of Kerala Periyar & Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32, 33, 80J, 80J(1A) Asst. Year 1975-76 K.S.

Sec. 80AA, Section 80, Section 80J

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the original assessment was completed on March 22, 1974, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the ITO to allow deductions under ss. 80-I and 80J of the IT Act, 1961, on the basis of the assessee’s claim for such deductions made in its letter dated February 8, 1979, in the course of the reassessment proceedings pending in terms of the Tribunal’s Order in ITA No. 2971 /Cal/74-75 dated June 11, 1976 ?

/

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Shree Bajrang Electric Steel Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 80J, 80AA Asst. Year 1971-72 Ajit

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security