Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 April, 1990

Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., ... vs Jcit, Kota on 31 January, 2018

3. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd v/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1990] 185ITR 96 (Kar.) Expenses which is deductible for Income Tax purpose is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time but the putting aside 39 ITA No. 306, 389 & 638/JP/14 Jt. CIT, Kota Vs. M/s Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., Kota of money which may become expenditure on the happening of an event is not expenditure
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on 5 May, 2005

In this regard reference was made to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 (52) Taxman 260 (= 185 Income Tax Reports 96). The view expressed was that the expenditure has to be actually existing liability expenditure which is deductible for income tax purposes, but merely putting aside the money which may become expenditure on happening of an event is not an expenditure.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 58 - S Kumar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dynavision Ltd. on 31 December, 2002

The Karnataka High Court in Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. v. CIT (supra) also held that for the purpose of deductibility of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, the basic requirement is that the amount sought to be excluded should be an expenditure and the expenditure which is deductible for income-tax purposes is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time, but the putting aside of money which may become expenditure on the happening of an event is not expenditure. All these decisions support the case of the Revenue in the sense that the money was paid by the assessee to the trustees without any liability on its part and hence, it is not a payment made by the assessee towards an accrued or existing liability of the company, but the trust was created to meet some future expenditure allegedly for the welfare of the dealers of the assessee and, therefore, it would not qualify for deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Hmt Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. (Dy. ... on 17 November, 1995

In the case of Mysore Lamp Works (supra), the Karnataka High Court engaged itself in the consideration of allowability of the amount to be set apart under s. 15(1) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. It was held by the High Court that the amount so set apart was not to discharge any present liability at all and that depending upon the contingency that amount might revert back to the employer absolutely for being utilised as he pleases or he might not have to make payment out of this towards computing the allocable surplus. It was finally held that the claim of the assessee was not allowable under s. 37.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 25 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Bharat Electronics Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 21 August, 1995

(c) Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 185 ITR 96 (Kar) : The Karnataka High Court held that the amount to be added back under s. 15(1) of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is not to discharge any present liability at all and that the provision is attracted only in case there is an allocable surplus during a particular accounting year. It furthermore held that the setting apart of the amount in this connection is not a payment at all in respect of an accrued or definite liability and furthermore that depending upon the contingency, that amount may revert back to the employer absolutely for being utilised as he pleases and hence, the amount cannot be treated as an expenditure at all and is not deductible under s. 37 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mysore Wine Products Ltd. on 13 February, 1996

(iii) Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1010 (Raj) It has been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. (supra) that the amount to be set apart under s. 15(1) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is not to discharge any present liability at all. In this case as well as in the other two cases, it was simply held by the different High Courts that the Income-tax law makes a distinction between an actual liability in praesenti and liability in futuro which, for the time being, is only contingent. The different High Courts held that whereas the present liability was debitable the later liability being contingent in nature, is not debitable. The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal dt. 21st Aug., 1995, in ITA No. 746(Bang)/1994 in the case of Bharat Electronics Ltd., and one dt. 7th Sept., 1995 in ITA No. 64(Bang)/1994 in the case of HMT Ltd., in which the Tribunal had held that the liability towards meeting increased remuneration to the employees of the two assessees under consideration did not arise in the relevant assessment year. Although there was a big talk in the market about the pay scales being revised, actually however, the agreements enforcing the liabilities were held by the Tribunal to have come at a later date.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Electronics Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 1995

(c) Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 96 (Kar.) : The Karnataka High Court held that the amount to be added back under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is not to discharge any present liability at all and that the provision is attracted only in case there is an allocable surplus during a particular accounting year. It furthermore held that the setting apart of the amount in this connection is not a payment at all in respect of an accrued or definite liability and furthermore that depending upon the contingency, that amount may revert back to the employer absolutely for being utilised as he pleases and hence, the amount cannot be treated as an expenditure at all and is not deductible under Section 37 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next