Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1951 (4.68 seconds)
Documents citing E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vs Orient Abrasives Ltd. on 11 January, 1982

Ltd. v. CIT (supra), it was in the course of carrying on of the existing business that expenditure was incurred and it was held that the expenditure was for facilitating the carrying on the business or that it related to the profit earning apparatus and, therefore, it was admissible. As stated, these cases cannot be applied to the present case wherein the expenditure was incurred in connection with the setting up of the business itself.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 17 March, 1988

Ltd. v. CIT , during the relevant assessment year, the assessee-company claimed deduction in regard to the amount paid by it to the State Government as a contribution of the assessee for metalling and black-topping of a kacha road from the factory of the assessee to the railway station. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of the contribution made by it to the State Government for the construction of tubewells in the proximity of the factory. The Income-tax Officer disallowed both these deductions on the ground that it was capital expenditure and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. On a reference, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that where construction of a road had facilitated the business operations of the assessee and enabled the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently and profitably though the advantage secured for the business of the assessee was of a long duration, it was not an advantage in the capital field because no tangible or intangible asset was acquired by the assessee nor was there any addition to, or expansion of, the profit-making apparatus of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision, it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the construction of the road and tubewells was of a capital nature and held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction claimed as revenue expenditure.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 20 July, 1983

A portion of it was met by the fund under Section 36(1). Therefore, the correct expenditure and/or loss of the assessee was the actual loss minus the fund received by the assessee. For this proposition, he relied on Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC) and urged that the request of the IAC was fair and the same should have been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 129 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pati Durga Cold Storage vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 May, 1986

The other decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 895 was concerned with the definition of 'priority industry' and the claim was rejected by observing that the benefit of Section 80-1 could accrue to a company which was engaged in the production of processed seeds and that processing of seeds is different from the keeping of potatoes in a cold storage. The decision was rendered on the basis of a finding that there was no evidence to show that the assessee was keeping potato tubers for seed purposes. The above two Allahabad High Court decisions have, thus, no application in this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1979

23. The decision of this court in R. B. Shreeram & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 428, to the effect that the expenditure of Rs. 28,027 incurred by the assessee, a private limited company engaged in the business of plying trucks, in replacing petrol engines by diesel engines was of a capital nature not allowable under Section 10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act is not correct. The view of the court that " we have the least doubt that in the instant case, the expenditure incurred is of a capital nature " cannot be justified.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. on 29 April, 1988

30. It is in 1986 that our Supreme Court decided Scientific Engineering House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT . That case related to drawings designs, plans, processing data, etc., of a company manufacturing scientific instruments and apparatus under an agreement with a Hungarian Company which agreed to supply the "technical know-how" required for manufacture. The assessee paid for these drawings, etc., and claimed depreciation on the ground that the drawings, etc., were plant.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next