COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KODAK INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice that was issued had stated that the matter appeared to be covered by the decision of this Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. V/s. CIT, 1997 225 ITR 792. We find, now that we have heard the learned counsel, that it is so covered.

(2.) The learned counsel for the assessee stressed that in the instant case, the assessee had acted to increase its share capital because it had been directed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) so to do. This was because it had to reduce its non-residential holding to forty per cent. It was the learned counsels submission that the only way in which the assessee could do business after the RBI directive was to issue share capital to comply with it. In his submission, therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. (supra) was distinguishable.

(3.) Whichever way we look at it, the object of the assessee was to increase its share capital; whether it did so to continue to do business after the RBI directive or otherwise, the case is covered by the judgment in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. (supra).