Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 February, 1960

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Joshi Formulabs (P) Ltd. on 18 January, 1999

(iv) Indian Copper Corporation v. CIT 1976 CTR (Pat) 321.: (1977) 110 ITR 434 (Pat) Reliance is also placed on the decisions (1967) 64 ITR 26 (Ker) (supra), CIT v. Coal Shipment (P) Ltd. 1972 CTR (SC) 36 : (1971) 82 ITR 902 (SC), (1973) 87 ITR 650 (AP) (supra) and CIT v. Late G.D. Naidhu & Ors. (1986) 51 CTR (Mad) 256 : (1986) 165 ITR 63 (Mad). In view of the legal position, as briefly mentioned above, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1 lakh, made by the assessing officer.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Standard Furniture Co. Ltd. (In ... on 1 August, 1978

In Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 544 (Pat), it was laid down that in order to sustain the claim for deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, there was no need for the assessee to show a direct correlation in point of time between the expenditure incurred and the profits earned. Ramaswami C. J. who spoke for the court observed (at p. 555):
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. on 25 August, 2004

23. There is a distinction between the actual liability in praesenti and a liability de futuro which for the time being is only contingent. The former is taxable but not the latter as held in Peter Merchant Ltd. v. Stedeford (1948) 30 Tax Cases 496; Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 434 (Pat); CIT v. Instrumentation Ltd. (1987) 167 ITR 354 (Raj); Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 366 (Bom). It is also settled that an assessee who follows the mercantile system of accounting, is entitled to claim a deduction even though the expenditure is actually not expended. It is enough if the liability for such expenditure accrues.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanpur Textiles Ltd. on 31 August, 2004

16.There is a distinction between the actual liability in praesenti and a liability de future which for the time being is only contingent. The former is deductible but not the latter as held in Peter Merchant Ltd. v. Stedeford (H. M. Inspector of Taxes) [1948] 30 TC 496 (CA) ; Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 434 (Patna); CIT v. Instrumentation Ltd. [1987] 167 ITR 354 (Raj) ; Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 366 (Bom). It is also settled that an assessee who follows the mercantile system of accounting, is entitled to claim a deduction even though the expenditure is actually not expended. It is enough if the liability for such expenditure accrues.
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Liquidators, Begg Dunlop And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta. on 3 April, 1962

The fact in the case of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax could only warrant one conclusion. Here the assessee was a sterling company carrying on business in the mining of copper ore and manufacturing of copper and brass in the State of Bihar. In the accounting year it paid to its London directors as compensation a sum of Rs. 2,66,677. The company being registered in the United Kingdom its affairs were looked after by a board of directors resident there. In course of time about 85 per cent. of the total shares passed to the hands of the Indian nationals and the seat of management and control of the company was transferred on April 6, 1952, from the United Kingdom to India. The resolution recording this change in management and control was passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the company held on March 26, 1952. The total of Pound 20,000 (equal to Rs. 2,66,677) was paid to six directors for loss of office. The Income-tax Officer held that there was no legal obligation on the company to pay this amount and it was not incidental to the business of the company. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the company was benefited in four different ways by the transfer of the seat of control and management from the United Kingdom to India. It was shown that the expense of remuneration of directors was halved because of this and the travelling expenses of the managing directors for attending meetings in India which came to about Pound 48,000 a year was altogether dispensed with. There can be no doubt that the transfer of the seat of management to India was in the interest of better supervision and control of the business. The learned judges of the Patna High Court held that "by asking the London directors to retire and paying them compensation the company was putting an end to an expensive method of carrying on business. It was an advantage from the commercial point of view for the company to ask its London directors to retire, and the compensation paid to the London directors was, therefore, a payment made wholly and exclusively in the interest of business.... Even assuming that there was no contract, I am of opinion that the payment of compensation made to the London directors in the circumstances of this case was payment made for commercial expediency and would fall within the ambit of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act."
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next