Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing India Carbon Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 1989

Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax on 28 November, 1997

20. It is now necessary to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. S. A. Balasubramaniam. The learned counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Indian Carbon Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 117/46 Taxman 206 wherein the Gauhati High Court held that the amount deposited in business in 'certain accounts' cannot be utilised by the assessee since the assessee is divested of the right to use the money or utilise the money in his business and the amount of bonus 'set on' deposited under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act amounted to business expenditure and was deductible in the computation of income. We are, however, unable to agree with the decision of the Gauhati High Court. The Gauhati High Court has proceeded on the basis that the amount set on by the assessee cannot be utilised and since the amount was deposited under the provisions of the statute, it would amount to expenditure. We are of the view that the amount set on cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred by the assessee. The title over the money is not lost to the assessee and correspondingly, the employees for whose benefit the amount was set apart have not gained any right, title or interest over the money set on. Under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, the amount set on has to be utilised for the payment of bonus in case there is deficiency in the succeeding years in the quantum of allocable surplus. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the money has been expended by the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1989

One of us, speaking for the Division Bench (Chief Justice) in Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1981 (India Carbon Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 117), reviewed the cases and held that taxes paid perforce under the statutes are to be deducted from the profit and loss account of the assessees. Broadlx, expenditure incurred for business was to be deducted and expenditure incurred for profits cannot be deducted.
Gauhati High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

National Dairy Development Board vs Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 August, 2007

Even otherwise, the 'expenditure' means what is paid out and is something that, has gone irretrievably. This could be either actually paid under the cash system or accounted or as such under the mercantile basis toward a liability actually existing at that time but putting aside of money which may become expenditure on happening of an event is not an expenditure [Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT ; India Carbon Ltd. v. CIT ]. Thus, expenditure covers a liability which has accrued although it may have to be discharged at a future date.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 109 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lintas & Paines Now Linikleters , vs Assessee on 23 November, 2012

Indian Carbon Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 27 (Gau) The assesse claimed deduction of managerial remuneration of Rs.2,07,783, out of which Rs.54,000 was allowed by the AO and the balance was disallowed by applying the provisions of section 40(c). The Tribunal held that the entire remuneration was allowable as it was reasonable. On a miscellaneous application, the Tribunal noted that it had overlooked the amendment to section 40(c), which limited the maximum allowance of remuneration to Rs.72,000. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed a rectification order restricting the allowance to Rs.72,000. The High Court held that section 40(c) was capable of interpretation only as done by the Tribunal and accordingly upheld the Tribunal's rectification order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Iv vs M/S Hydrocarbons India Ltd. on 30 March, 2011

"8. We have considered the rival submissions on the admission of new ground. On the point of admission of new ground, we are of the opinion that the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (Supra) is latest authority where the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the power to raise additional ground is there but there should be sufficient reasons and bona fide on the part of the assessee to show that the ground could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In the present case, we find that in the application, the assessee has not given any good reason for not raising this ground earlier. Therefore, applying the ratio of the above cited decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this ground could not be raised. Otherwise also, we find that no doubt the previous year is the calendar year i.e.31.12.1983 for the business of the assessee but for different source of income, there can be different previous years. Therefore, for the income for year under consideration if previous year is adopted as financial year ending on 31.03.1984, then date of January, 1984 falls in assessment year 1984-85. So the year of assessment adopted by the tax authorities having not been objected at any stage and there is no evidence of that on record. Therefore, this additional ground cannot be admitted. Further, it will necessitate investigation of facts. In view of this, the additional ground is rejected."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1