Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (3.10 seconds)
Documents citing Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 April, 1973

Acit, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad, ... vs Kamineni Builders, Hyderabad, ... on 30 November, 2017

In the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT [95 ITR 664] (Pat), there was an agreement to pay profits instead of interest while borrowing the amount itself. In that context, the claim of profit was held to be the business expenditure 'wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business'. The facts in that case also indicate that there was a prior agreement before borrowing the money to pay the interest which is charged on the profits of assessee. No such fact exists in this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abhay Kumar Shroff vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 June, 1997

In the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores (supra), the assessee had paid a certain sum as commission @ Rs. 100 per truck sold and claimed deduction of the amount, and it was disallowed on the ground that there was no written agreement for such payment. It was common ground that the claim was made for business expediency. It was held that the claim could not be disallowed merely because the assessing authority thought that the assessee could have managed by paying a lesser amount as a prudent businessman. It is, thus, seen that the considerations in that case were of commercial expediency and the facts were entirely different. The case does not help the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna Cites 22 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Elem Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, ... vs Acit, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad on 13 April, 2022

In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue (Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Pat); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addl. Cit, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New ... on 8 May, 2023

In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue (Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Pat); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nestle India Ltd. on 10 January, 2005

Support in this respect was derived from the judgments reported in Sanjeevi & Co. v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 156 (Mad); Amarjothi Pictures v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 755 (Mad); CIT v. Turner Morrison & Co. (P) Ltd. (1974) 93 ITR 385 (Cal); CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 173 (Mad) and Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Pat). The learned counsel argued that reasonableness of the expenditure had to be seen from the point of view of the businessman and not that of the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 47 - Cited by 48 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next