Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Union Carbide India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 April, 1980

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai vs M/S General Insurance Corporation on 25 September, 2006

Decisions of this Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (supra) and CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (1998) 229 ITR 137 of Karnataka High Court, CIT Vs. Ajit Mills Limited, (1994) 210 ITR 658, Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd., vs. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 358 & Union Carbide India Ltd., vs. CIT, (1993) 203 ITR 584 of Calcutta High Court are of not much assistance to us. All these cases relate to the issue of fresh shares which lead to an inflow of fresh funds into the company which expands, or adds to its capital employed in the company resulting in the expansion of its profit making apparatus. Expenditure incurred for the purpose of increasing company's share capital by the issue of fresh shares would certainly be a capital expenditure as has been held by this Court in the cases cited above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Lucas Tvs Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 March, 1995

The assessee has taken the decision that certain technical information is necessary and he has engaged accordingly any person or agency. The Revenue in such a situation cannot say that the services of such person or agency were not necessary for the supply of technical information to a buyer outside India. It is indeed difficult to perceive why any seller will need any export agency's inspection, before the goods are exported or there is any contract for the sale of goods, unless he feels it necessary to do so or at least thinks, it shall be helpful in promoting the sale of goods, services or facilities, abroad. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union Carbide (supra) has gone by the logic that the concerned authorities were satisfied that the expenditure upon the report of the agency concerned for the promotion of export was necessary. It has, however, not said what may be the basis or what can be the basis or what should be the basis for holding that the inspection and report by any expert agency or person is necessary.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Dr. Beck And Co. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 September, 1993

8. We have carefully considered the above decision. However, in view of the foregoing discussion we find it difficult to accept the same. In our opinion, "any expenditure incurred in India" for the purpose of export squarely falls in the exclusion contained in sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act as it is an expenditure in connection with "the supply outside India of such goods". We find it extremely difficult to hold it to be an expenditure on furnishing to a person technical information for the promotion of the sale of such goods. Neither the inspection by the authorities have any nexus with technical information for promotion of sales nor does the certificate contain any such information. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was justified in disallowing weighted deduction in respect of expenditure on export inspection charges.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next