Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K. Industries (P.) Ltd. on 20 April, 1978

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dr. A.M. Singhvi on 23 August, 2007

In the case of CIT v. J.K. Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), the assessee's contention before the Tribunal that wooden panelling did not last long and as such was not enduring asset, was accepted and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court found that the expenses incurred in putting up the wooden panelling did not result in any enduring benefit to the assessee and, therefore, was deductible as a revenue expenditure.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 17 - P Majmudar - Full Document

P.S.B. Finance Investment Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 22 June, 1990

18. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon certain rulings to show that such expenditure is treated as revenue expenditure for the purposes of determination of the income of an assessee. He referred to the case of CIT v. J.K. Industries (P.) Ltd [1980] 125 ITR 218 (Cal.). In that case an expenditure of Rs. 9,206 was incurred on renovation of office premises which included the cost of panelling the walls with plywoods and the cost of a notice board and book case. It was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that this was a revenue expenditure. In that case, the Tribunal had held that the wooden panellings did not last long and as such were not an enduring asset. This finding was not challenged by the revenue and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that it was a revenue expenditure. This judgment, therefore, does not laid down any principle which may properly be applied to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Cotton Fabrics Ltd. on 11 February, 1981

10. It was pointed out that the principle that income falling under a specific head should be made chargeable under that head even if it is earned for business purposes, is to be worked out only for the limited purpose of computing the total income of an assessee. This decision of the Gujarat High Court was followed by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. J.K. Industries (P.) Ltd. [1989] 125 ITR 218. It is thus clear that in the case of the present assessee, though the total income of the assessee is in the course of its business, it gets part of its income from dividends and computation of that income from dividends is to be done in accordance with the provisions of ss. 56 and 57 of the I.T. Act. But the computation having been so done, ultimately, it still forms part of the income of the business of the assessee and it is assessable as such as profits and gains of business carried on by the assessee. Under s. 36 of the I.T. Act, interest paid by an assessee for the purpose of carrying on its business is deducted in its entirely while computing profits and gains of the business and, therefore, it is not possible to allocate a portion of that interest as against income from dividends by stating that that interest had to be paid for the purpose of investing in shares held by the assessee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jct Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 8 October, 2004

5.1. Dr. Pal relied on CIT v. J.K. Industries (P) Ltd. wherein it was held that when with the capital borrowed, the assessee had acquired a business" asset for the purpose of its own business as also of the companies maintained by it and that it would be conducive to the business of the assessee if all the companies managed by it were housed in the same building, the amounts, paid as interest on the amount borrowed and as municipal taxes, were deductible as revenue expenditure. In that case, the assessee had borrowed certain amount for purchase of a plot of land in Calcutta with the object of constructing a multi-storeyed building for housing its own office as also the offices of several companies managed by it. It had claimed deduction of the interest paid to the bank on the loan as well as the municipal taxes on the land for computing its profits for the asst. yrs, 1961-62 to 1964-65. Admittedly, till then new building was not constructed on the land. In the said case, this Court did not decide the question as to whether the interest paid on the borrowed capital would be includible in the cost of acquiring the asset, therefore, this decision will not help Us in the present context, 5.2.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document
1   2 Next