Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kusum Products Ltd. on 18 July, 1988

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-11(2)(1), Mumbai on 15 September, 2020

The assessee also places reliance in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v, Kusum Products Ltd (41 Taxman 188) (Cal HC), Allied Metal Products v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (7 Taxman 181) (Punj & Haryana HC) and Girdhari Dass & Sons (105 ITR 339) (All HC) wherein the claim of expenditure incurred on leased/ rented asset has been allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

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

69. The leaned counsel of the assessee argued that the provisions of Section 92 did not apply. Those provisions were attracted where profit of a joint venture was apportioned between the parties. The provision necessarily implied business between two persons. The assessee as a company carried on its business independently. There was no business carried on between the assessee as a resident company and the NESTEC/SPN as a non-resident. As there was no business between them, the question of the course of business being arranged did not arise. The AO completely misdirected himself in invoking the provisions of Section 92. The learned counsel relied in this aspect on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Kusum Products Ltd. (1993) 71 Taxman 611 (Cal) Above all, the CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001 reported in (2001) 251 ITR (St) 65, in para 55.2 clarified that the provisions of Section 92 of the Act as they stood up to asst. yr. 2001-02 did not apply to transactions such as royalty, etc, which are not part of regular business carried on between a resident or a non-resident. The learned counsel argued that assuming without admitting that the provisions of Section 92 applied, the onus under Section 92 to prove that the course of business between the resident and the non-resident, owing to their close connection, was so arranged as to result in less than ordinary profits to the resident assessee in that business was entirely on the AO and such onus had not been discharged in the case of the assessee. The AO had not led any evidence/material which would show that the assessee would have paid lesser royalty to an unrelated party. The provider of the know-how or the assessee could not have known at the time of entering into the agreements in question as to what would be the quantum of sale or profit of the assessee in the ensuing years. In fact, the assessee discontinued manufacture of two products subsequently as the same were not profitable. In such a scenario, it could not be said that the course of the business was so arranged as to result in less than ordinary profit to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 47 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. on 28 November, 1991

17. This decision was followed by this court in CIT v. Kusum Products Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 250. In that case, the assessee had spent a sum of over Rs. 10,00,000 for the purchase of import entitlements to make import of raw materials and in the accounting year in which such purchase was made it claimed deduction of the said entire sum as business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of such expenditure on the ground that import entitlements to the extent of Rs. 9.54 lakhs was not utilised during the year of account. According to the Income-tax Officer, the deduction could be allowed only in respect of the benefit actually derived by utilising the import entitlements during the year in question proportionately.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg) Co. Ltd. on 3 November, 1998

24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the amount of Rs. 2,95,000 is an allowable deduction. He relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court CIT vs. Kusum Products Ltd. (1984) 41 CTR (Cal) 357 : (1984) 149 ITR 250 (Cal) :, 8 and the decision of the Gauhati High Court in R.G.S. Industries vs. CIT (1990) 81 CTR (Gau) 6 : (1990) 183 ITR 31 (Gau) in support of his contention that the loss suffered by the assessee is allowable as deduction in computation of its income. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue did not seriously dispute this part of the controversy. He only submitted that this, amount can be allowed as deduction only in the year in which it was written off. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the clear opinion that this amount of loss is allowable as deduction in the asst. yr. 1970-71 in which it is written off. Question No. 16 is answered accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing ... on 2 November, 1998

25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that the amount of Rs. 2,95,000 is an allowable deduction. He relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Kusum Products Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 250 and the decision of the Gauhati High Court in R.G.S. Industries v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 31 in support of his contention that the loss suffered by the assessee is allowable as deduction in the computation of its income. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Revenue, did not seriously dispute this part of the controversy. He only submitted that this amount can be allowed as a deduction only in the year in which it was written off. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We are of the clear opinion that this amount of loss is allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1970-71 in which it is written off. Question No. 16 is answered accordingly.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - P Upasani - Full Document

M/S G. Corp Private Ltd.,, Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 January, 1996

(v) There is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure defined in the income tax proceedings. Expenditure has to be either considered ITA No.465/Bang/10 Page 4 of 17 as revenue or capital in nature. Once the expenditure is held to be revenue, the same has to be fully allowed as held in the case of Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (41 ITR 751) and CIT v. Kusum Products Ltd. (149 ITR 250).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Her Narain Aggarwal, vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 February, 2007

Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case CIT vs. Kusum Products Ltd. (203 ITR 672) had held that without through revised return, the appellant has offered additional amount of cash credit though to begin with the confirmatory letters from the lenders were filed and the lenders subsequently denied the fact the fact of giving loan. However, in the present case, the donor has not denied the fact of giving gift.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next