Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.94 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. on 11 April, 1957

Messrs. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 20 November, 1961

The view expressed by this High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. is also borne out by a decision of the Privy Council in Rhodesia Railways Limited v. Income-tax Collector, Bechuanaland Protectorate, where the material facts were of similar character to those of the present case. At page 232 of the report Lord Macmillan has stated as follows :
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Humayun Properties Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta. on 5 April, 1961

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. a sum of Rs. 17,256 was spent on machinery repairs, namely, for replacing a fire box for locomotive, for replacing a cast iron headstock for rollers and for purchase of a cost iron sublimer for generating sulphur gas and it was claimed that these replacements were necessary because of fair wear and tear. Ramaswami J. (Imam J. concurring) held that a renewal may be a repair or reconstruction. The test is whether the act of replacement that the entire machinery or substantial part of replacement is one which is in substance replacement of defective parts or replacement of entire machinery or substantial part of the entire machinery. It was further; held that; the expression "current repairs to machinery" which occurs in section 10 (2) (v) must be interpreted to mean repairs to machinery in the current accounting year land the word "current" is; used in contradistinction to past or arrear repairs. The learned judge dissented from the Allahabad view and point out that there is nothing in section 10 (2) (v) to suggest that the expenditure on repairs cannot be all, owed as a proper deduction if the repairs are not petty, inasmuch as the section does not say anything about the magnitude of the expenditure. The deduction claimed by the assessee was therefore, allowed under section 10 (2) (v).
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Asian Hotels Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 28 April, 2006

If the amount spent was for the purpose of bringing into existence a new asset or obtaining a new advantage, then obviously such an expenditure would not be an expenditure of a revenue nature but it would be a capital expenditure, and it is clear that the deduction which the Legislature has permitted under Section 10(2)(v) is a deduction where the expenditure is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure.' In taking the above view, the Bombay High Court dissented from the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Ramkishan Sunderlalv. CIT [1951] 19 ITR 324, where it was held that the expression 'current repairs' in Section 10(2)(v) was restricted to petty repairs only which are carried out periodically. The learned judge agreed with the view taken by the Patna High Court in CIT v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. and by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S. Zoraster And Co. on 12 September, 1979

When the need for repairs arose their Lordships of the Bombay High Court agreed with the decision of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 21 and of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. [1952] 21 ITR 191 and it was pointed out that in the definition given by Buckley L.J., he only considered the expression " repair " while in the Indian Act the expression used is "current repairs ", so that the pastor arrear repairs are not included in the allowable deduction under Section 10(2)(v) of the Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Seraikella Glass Works (P.) Ltd. on 15 March, 1985

5. Learned counsel for the Department placed reliance upon the case of Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd. v. 77 [1963] 49 ITR (SC) 160, That was a case where the assessee, a company manufacturing sugar, shifted its factory from Sitalpur to Garaul. The shifting entailed considerable expense. The Supreme Court observed that the expenditure incurred in dismantling and refitting the existing plant at a better site produced an advantage which enabled the trade to prosper and which could be expected to last for ever and was, therefore, capital expenditure. This case was decided entirely on a different set of facts. There can be no quarrel with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this case.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next