Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Kodandarama And Company, Bhupathiraju ... on 23 December, 1982

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Transport Corporation Of India ... on 6 June, 2002

3. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department assailed the validity of the opinion of the Tribunal by contending that in the first place, the assessee had utterly failed to place any satisfactory materials and evidence before the assessing authority to show that as a matter of fact, it paid secret commission as claimed by it during the relevant assessment years and that the Tribunal had wrongly placed the burden on the department. The learned counsel contended that it is well settled that when an assessee claims disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act, it is his or its burden to prove that the payment was made by him or it. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the alleged payment made by the assessee company is opposed to public policy and therefore, not allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Kodandarama and Company and others (supra 1) and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT (supra 2) clinch the controversy as regards the questions referred to this Court and that the questions have to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in the light of those judgments.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Drill Rock Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 April, 1988

Ltd. 's case (supra) and the subsequent orders of the Tribunal passed thereon were held applicable we have to hold that those decisions came in conflict with the Bombay High Court's decision in Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd.'s case (supra) and the A.P. High Court's decision in Kodandarama & Co.'s case (supra) and therefore, we are bound to follow the Bombay and A.P. High Court's decisions in preference to any Special Bench decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that the payment of secret commission even for the sake of argument if it is found to be true, is to be held as a payment made against public policy and hence illegal and cannot be allowed as a lawful deduction under Section 37.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 64 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Patel Brothers vs Dy. Cit on 7 February, 2002

The learned Departmental Representative next advanced his arguments on the basis of Explanation to section 37(1) introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, retrospectively, and around that if at all any such expenditure has been incurred by the assessee, payment of secret commission is hit by the mischief of the Explanation since it has been incurred for any purpose which is an 'offence' or which is 'prohibited by law.' The learned Departmental Representative submitted that secret commission claimed to have been paid would constitute a business malpractice involving breach of trust by the alleged recipients who are employees of the customers of the assessee and is clearly prohibited by the law. In this connection, the learned Departmental Representative, referred to various statutory enactments, like Indian Penal Code, Contract Act as well as income-tax laws. The learned Departmental Representative referred to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cases of CIT v. Kodandarama & Co. & Ors. (1983) 144 ITR 395 (AP) and argued that any payment opposed to public policy would not entitle to deduction as business expenditure. The learned Departmental Representative further placed reliance on the following decisions :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajendra Kr. Dengayadh And Co. on 31 December, 1992

6. The learned D/R vehemently urged that payment of tips to the Policemen on waysides was immoral and illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the expenditure incurred thereupon was not allowable. Reliance was placed on the case of CIT v. Kodandarama & Co. [1983] 144 ITR 395 (AP). The person appearing for the assessee and whose request for adjournment was not accepted by the Tribunal, could advance no arguments.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ito V.D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co. (P) ... vs Unknown on 26 August, 2004

6. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court earlierin the case of CIT v. Kodandarama & Co. 144 ITR 395 where the Hon'ble court held that assessee would not be entitled to deduction of contribution or payment made in contravention of law or which are opposed to public policy. The claim for deduction of expenditure will have to be examined with regard to public policy and the purpose of the expenditure. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act equates an agreement or contract opposed to public policy with an agreement or contract fore bidden by law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

First Income-Tax Officer vs French Dyes And Chemicals (I) (P.) Ltd. on 31 July, 1984

37. Stress was also laid by the department on the question of public policy. Apart from the reference to the provisions of Section 133(4) in Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd.'s case (supra), reliance was placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kodandarama and Co. (supra). Even though reference is made to Section 133(4) which requires the assessee to give out the names of persons to whom payments are made, even the Bombay High Court decision has not categorically laid down that where this requirement is not satisfied even in a case which would have been detrimental to the business, the expenditure claimed should be disallowed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's case dealt with the case of an assessee who were dealers-cwm-mills of paddy who made contributions at specific rates to the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund and in return were granted export permits by the Collector for exporting boiled rice to Kerala. The High Court held that the contributions were compulsory payments exacted from the assessee as a price for granting export permits. According to their Lordships, it was not open to the District Collector or any other authority for that matter to impose a condition linking the grant of permits, to the making of a particular contribution to a particular fund, society, etc. Nor was it open to the authority to say that whosoever makes larger contribution alone would be entitled to export permits. It was for that reason that their Lordships held that the contributions were opposed to public policy almost, not different from paying bribes and disallowed the payment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Cit vs Transport Corpn. India Ltd. on 6 June, 2002

3. Shri S.R. Ashok, the learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department assailed the validity of the opinion of the Tribunal by contending that in the first place, the assessee had utterly failed to place any satisfactory materials and evidence before the assessing authority to show that as a matter of fact, it paid secret commission as claimed by it during the relevant assessment years and that the Tribunal had wrongly placed the burden on the department. The learned counsel contended that it is well-settled that when an assessee claims disallowance under section 37(1) it is his or its burden to prove that the payment was made by him or it. The learned standing counsel contended that the alleged payment made by the assessee-company is opposed to public policy and, therefore, not allowable under section 37(1). The learned standing counsel contended that the judgment of this court in Kodandarama & Co.'s case (supra) and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd.'s case (supra) clinch the controversy as regards the questions referred to this court and that the questions have to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in the light of those judgments.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next