Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay vs Haji Sabumiyan Haji Sirajuddin. on 8 December, 1944

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Siddareddy Venkatasubba Reddy And ... on 3 September, 1948

In this state of the authorities, counsel took up the following positions. For the department, it was contended that the amounts in question which were paid under the four documents were capital expenditure, as they were expended as outlay for the initiation of the business. It was expenditure necessary for the acquisition of property, or right sof a permanent character, the possession of which was a counsel of carrying on the business. The business of the assessee was to win mica and sell it. It was not the business of a manufacturer and the expenditure was not for the purchase of raw material for the manufacturing business. The mining rights which were obtained under the four documents would be in the nature of an assets or an advantage for the enduring the benefit of the business, and it is not necessary that the benefit should be everlasting. The three decision so this Court and the decision in Ganeshilal Bhattawala, In re, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tika Ram & Sons, Ltd., and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay v. Haji Sabumiyan Haji Sirajuddin were relied on, besides the observation in Robert Addie & Sons Collieries, Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Mallett v. Staveley Coal and Iron Co. Ltd., to which reference had already been made. For the assessee, Mr. Subbaraya Aiyar, his learned counsel, urged that there was no initiation of a business, as the assessee was doing business in mica even before the agreement in question, and that two of the mines had already been worked before the execution of the concerned agreements. His further contention was that the business of the assessee was of the nature of a manufacture and the acquisition of any rights under the documents must be treated as purchase of raw material necessary for the carrying on of the manufacturing business.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Pingle Industries Ltd., Secunderabad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad on 26 April, 1960

factures and vendors of country made cigarettes known as bidis. These cigarettes were composed of tobacco rolled in leaves of a tree known as tendu leaves, which were obtained by the assessees by entering into a number of short term contracts with the Government and other owners of forests. Under the contracts, in consideration of certain sum payable by instalments, the assessees were granted the exclusive right to pick and carry away the tendu leaves from the forest area described. The assessees were allowed to coppice small tendu plants a few months in advance to obtain good leaves and to pollard tendu trees a few months in advance to obtain better and bigger leaves. The picking of the leaves however had to start at once or practically at once and to proceed continuously. The Privy Council distinguished Alianza Co. v. Bell (2) and overruling the decision in Income-tax Appellate Tribunal v. Haji Sabumiyan Haji Sirajuddin (3) held that the expenditure was to secure raw material and was allowable as being on revenue account. Lord Greene delivering the judgment of the Board said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 76 - J L Kapur - Full Document
1