Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing M. K. Brothers (P) Ltd vs C.I.T. Kanpur on 29 August, 1972

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs State Farming Corporation Of Kerala ... on 27 July, 1989

That decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in M. K. Brothers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 38. In that case, under a contract between the British India Corporation and the assessee, the Corporation became liable to pay and the assessee became entitled to receive commission at a certain rate every year. The disputed amount was part of the commission earned by the assessee for the previous year relating to the assessment year and it was after it had been earned by the assessee that it became liable to be retained by the Corporation for the adjustment of the debt due to the Corporation from S and Co., the sole selling agent. It was, therefore, a case of application of income after it was earned by the assessee and the amount in question was hence assessable as income of the assessee.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sarada Binding Works on 21 September, 1973

In M.K. Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax the assessee purchased the sole selling agency rights from another in consideration of the assessee adjusting the commission it earned towards certain debts due by him. The question arose was whether the amounts so adjusted was a revenue or capital expenditure. The Supreme Court held that the payment amounted to a capital expenditure as it was a case of application of income to discharge a liability incurred not in the course of running the business, but undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the sole selling agency right which was an asset of a capital nature. Both the above decisions do not touch the aspect which we have to consider here. In those cases it was definitely found that the amounts in question were spent for acquiring either capital assets or an advantage of an enduring nature and there was no question of the payment depending on the profits earned.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 36 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Trustees Of H.E.H. The Nizam'S ... on 21 January, 1981

In K. P. Brothers v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 650 (Raj), the donor and the donees and accounts in a banking firm. On instructions from the donor an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was debited to his account and the amount was credited to the accounts of the donees. Even though the cash balance in the account books was not sufficient to cover the amount transferred, it was held that the entries made would operate as a valid gift.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Vanaja Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 October, 1993

In M.K. Brothers P. Ltd v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 38, the Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the matter and said that the answer to the question as to whether the money paid is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure depends not so much upon the fact as to whether the amount paid is large or small or whether it has been paid in lump sum or by instalments, as it does upon the purpose for which the payment has been made and expenditure incurred. It is the real nature and quality of the payment and not the quantum or the manner of the payment which would prove decisive, (emphasis* added). If the object of making the payment is to acquire a capital asset, the payment would partake of the character of a capital payment even though it is made not in a lump sum but by instalments over a period of time. On the contrary, payment made in the course of and for the purpose of carrying on business or trading activity would be revenue expenditure even though the payment is of a large amount and has not to be made periodically.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. on 13 March, 1996

In that context, this court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in M. K. Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 38, the decisions in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34, in CIT v. Coal Shipments Pvt. Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 902 and also the decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 and remanded the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the issue with reference to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decisions. The relevant principles contained in the said judgments of the Supreme Court have been set out and discussed in our judgment rendered in I. T. R. Nos.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 11 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs M.D. Manohar Rao on 27 October, 1984

In other words, it was held that the partner in the main firm receives the income not only on his behalf , but also on behalf of the partners of the sub-partnership and, therefore, it would be a case of diversion under an overriding title; whereas, in the case of M.K.Brothers Private Ltd. v. CIT , it was held that it was only a case of application of income, and not a case of diversion under an overriding title. This was a case where the sole selling agent of Kanpur Cotton Mills resigned his sole agency in favour of the assessee, on condition that the assessee pays 1/7th of the commission accruing to him, to the sole selling agent. For the assessment year in question, the assessee credited a certain amount out of the commission earned by it, to the former sole selling agent and claimed it as a deduction out of its income, which was disallowed by the ITO, the Tribunal, as also by the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, holding that since the amount was being diverted only by virtue of a mutual agreement, it cannot be said to be a case of diversion under a superior or overriding title.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Indian Glass Agency vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 September, 1981

(13) The question that next arises is whether it is always necessary for the validity of the gift that the family, firm or company should have sufficient cash on hand on the material date or that the donor should have sufficient credit balance in his account with such concern. It has been held in a large number of cases that a gift of money is perfectly valid if proper entries are made in account books notwithstanding that there is no transfer of possession, that the donor does not have sufficient balance in his account and that even the firm does not have sufficient cash balance on the material rate. (See: Chimanbhai Lalbhai v. Cit, 1958-34 Itr 259 (8), K. P. Brothers v. Cit, 1961-42 Itr 650 (9), E. S. Hajee Abdul Kareem and Son v. Cit, 1963-50 Itr 396 (10), Bhhu Ram Jawaharlal v. Cit, 1971-82 Itr 772 (II), Gopal Jalan v. Cit, 1972-86 Itr 317 (12), Phool Chand Gajanand v. Cit, 1973-89 Itr 148 (13), and Jhaverbhai Patel v. Cit, 1976-103 Itr 728 (14), Srinath Das v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B", 1977- 109 Itr 315 (15), Cgt v. Tarachand Meghraj, 1977-109 Itr 775 (16), and Smt. S. Puniyamma v. Cgt, 1979-117 Itr 47) (17). What is necessary in all these cases is to examine whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, what has been done is a natural method of transfer or whether any circumstances exist which indicate that there is nothing more than mere book entries.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next