Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 July, 1984

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Industrial Cables (I) Ltd. on 24 October, 2003

In the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemicals Co, Ltd. v. CIT (supra), their Lordships at p, 659 observed "The question as to whether an item of expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business or not has to be decided on the facts of each case, the necessary condition being that it must be laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The true test of an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade or business is that it is incurred by the assessee as incidental to his trade for the purpose of keeping the trade going and of making it pay and not in any capacity other than as a trader. Section 37(1) of IT Act being a residual provision, it cannot be taken aid of, unless and until it is established that none of the provisions of Sections. 30 to 36 are applicable to a given case. The scope of Section 37(1) is essentially wider. The word 'business' used in Section 37(1) in association with the expression "for the purpose of is a word of wide connotation. In the context of taxing statute, the word 'business' would signify an organised and continuous course of commercial activity which is carried on with the end in view of making and earning profits".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 50 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Dy. Cit vs Shree Synthetics Ltd. on 7 March, 2002

From letter of offer, we find that convertible debenture issue was for financing various projects including expansion and modification of polycondensation facilities, expansion of spinning line and nylon polymerisation modification. This makes it clear that money raised from this issue has been spent on expansion or extension of existing projects. We are unable to agree with learned Authorised representative that expansion will not be covered by the word 'extension'. In Chamber's Dictionary, the word 'extend' has been defined to mean to enlarge, to expand and word 'expand' has been defined to mean to spread out, to enlarge in bulk or surface area. Therefore, these two words have more or less same meaning. When a particular expenditure is to be allowed under a specific section, then as held by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), there is no need to go to residuary section, i.e., section 37 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 65 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

B & A Digi Tactical Solutions Private ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 28 August, 2017

8. Also with regard to the claim preferred by the appellant u/s.37 and not u/s.32, the same is not tenable on facts and in law. It is settled law that the provisions of s.37 are applicable in respect of general expenses, where expenditure not specified in s.30 to s.36 are to be considered. As also, expenditure which is not capital or personal in nature and which is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of business. These exclude expenses for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law etc. Sec.37(1) therefore being a residual provision, cannot be taken aid of, unless and until it is established that none of the provisions of s.30 to 36 are applicable to a given case. This view finds support from the ratio in Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Ltd v. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) and Khimji Visram and Sons P Ltd v CIT 209 ITR 993 (Guj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eicher Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 May, 2002

8.3 The learned authorised representative, on the other hand, submits that no reason was recorded for making the addition under Section 143(3) of the Act and the learned CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's contentions. He refers page Nos. 134 and 135 of the chart filed on behalf of the assessee wherein several decisions have been cited stated to be in support of the contention of the assessee. He submits further that the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on by the learned senior Departmental Representative does not deal with the issue of rent paid on guest-house, rather it is on the issue of maintenance only. He cites the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 655 (MP). He submits further that Section 37(4) of the Act be r/w Sections 40 and 40A of the Act. The assessee had claimed expenditure by way of rent, repairs and depreciation on guest house allowable under Sections 30, 31 and 32, respectively, were not disallowable under Section 37(4) of the Act, submits the learned authorised representative.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 102 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

India Carbon Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 1989

13. There are three other cases where the issue was considered under the Act No. 21 of 1965. The decision in Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 655 was a case from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where it was held that Section 15 did create a liability and set on amounts do not discharge a subsisting liability and, therefore such amounts were held reserved for future contingent liability. The assessee did not deposit the amount with the Bonus Act authority, and, therefore, it was additionally stated to support the contention that the reserved amount is not expenditure.
Gauhati High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 April, 1990

Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand, referred to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT and urged that the amount set apart under section 15 of the Bonus Act was in the nature of a reserve fund necessarily to be created by virtue of the statutory mandate and that it was not at all an expenditure. The said fund was to meet a contingent liability and the mere possibility of a liability having to be met out of such a fund cannot result in an expenditure.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

B And A Digi Tactical Solutions Private ... vs Acit, Chennai on 8 June, 2017

8.0 Ground Nos.7 & 8 are related to the addition of Rs.1,83,958/- on account of belated payment of PF. The assessee has remitted the contribution of PF to the PF A/c beyond the due date specified under the respective PF Act & Pension Scheme etc. However, the above amounts were remitted to the respective accounts before the due date of filing the return of income. This issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 in favour of assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Chennai vs Amec Foster Wheeler India Private ... on 25 November, 2016

These exclude expenses for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law etc. Sec.37(1) therefore being a residual provision, cannot be taken aid! of, unless and until it is established that none of the provisions of s.30 to 36 are applicable to a given case. This view find support from the ratio in. Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Ltd v. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) and Khimji Visram and Sons P Ltd v CIT 209 ITR 993 (Guj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 6 January, 2017

s.30 to 5.36 are to be considered. As also, expenditure which is not capital or personal in nature and which is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of business. These exclude expenses for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law etc. Sec.37(1) therefore being a residual provision, cannot be taken aid! of, unless and until it is established that none of the provisions of s.30 to 36 are applicable to a given case. This view find support from the ratio in. Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Ltd v. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) and Khimji Visram and Sons P Ltd v CIT 209 ITR 993 (Guj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next