Skip to content


T.T. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference Case Nos. 76 and 77 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1989]177ITR536(KAR); [1989]177ITR536(Karn)
ActsCompanies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
AppellantT.T. Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateG. Sarangan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Srinivasan and ;H. Raghavendra Rao, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....the charge in the departmental enquiry, unless it is shown that, it involves complicated questions of law or fact, which requires the adjudication by the criminal court and till then the proceedings under departmental enquiry cannot be proceeded, then only the case requires as to whether the departmental proceedings to be stayed or not. on facts, held, there are four charges alleged in the departmental enquiry. whereas the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under sections 460,471,406,408 and 409 of i.p.c., and the allegations in support of the said charge is that, the petitioner has committed a criminal breach of trust, forgery and cheating, whereas the charge alleged in the departmental enquiry is that, making xerox copy of the tickets and selling them,..........'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax payable under the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, was an inadmissible deduction in computing the total income of the applicant 2. 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 the relief under section 80j without restricting it on time basis ?' 2. the first question is completely covered by the decision of this court in cit v. international instruments (p.) ltd. [1984] 144 itr 936 (itrcs. nos. 109 and 110 of 1979, dated 14-9-1983). in view of the said decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. the second question is covered by the.....
Judgment:

S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.

1. The following two questions of law have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court:

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was an inadmissible deduction in computing the total income of the applicant

2. 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 the relief under section 80J without restricting it on time basis ?'

2. The first question is completely covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. [1984] 144 ITR 936 (ITRCs. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1979, dated 14-9-1983). In view of the said decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The second question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Mysore Petro Chemical Ltd. : [1984]145ITR416(KAR) [ITRC No. 6 of 1983, dated 3-8-1983]. In view of the said decision, we answer the second question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //