Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta on 24 December, 1959

Orient General Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 May, 1989

7. The expenditure has been claimed as deductible under Section 37 of the Act. Any expenditure which is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business is an allowable deduction in computing the business income. Any expenditure incurred for the preservation and protection of the assessee's business is an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act. Tax is levied, inter alia, on the business profits. These profits are ascertained according to commercial principles. If an assessee who carries on business commits any default in discharging statutory obligations under the Income-tax Act, payment if any made in consequence of such- default cannot constitute an allowable expenditure inasmuch as such expenditure cannot be said to have been made for the purpose of the business. The Division Bench of this court in Balmer Lawrie Co. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 751 held that interest paid by the assessee under Section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not interest in respect of capital borrowed and was, therefore, not allowable under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act of 1922. It was further held that this amount was not a trading loss under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1922.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.M. Chacko & Partners on 3 April, 1978

The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1960] 39 ITR 751, which we have examined, also proceeds on the same principle which we shall explain presently. In Haji Aziz and Abdttl Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-fax [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC), at page 359, the Supreme Court, in a sentence, which appears to be crucial and vital, explained that an infraction of the law cannot give rise to an allowable deduction under the provisions of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

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

Interest on account of deficiency in payment of advance tax or on account of delay in payment of tax or in the filing of the return of income, on the money borrowed for payment of income-tax, is neither deductible as business expenses under Section 37 nor as interest on borrowings under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, as held in the case of Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 (Bom); Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 751 (Cal); Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 774 (Patna); Mannalal Ratanlal v. CIT [1965] 58 ITR 84 (Cal); CIT v. Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) P. Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 373 (P&H) ; Gopaldas Dahyabhai Lavsi v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 531 (Guj) ; Waldies Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 577 (Cal) ; National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 252 (Cal) ; Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 654 (Bom) ; CIT v. Om Parkash Behl [1981] 132 ITR 342 (P&H) ; CIT v. International Instruments (P.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) on 13 March, 1978

9. Mr. Ajit Sengupta, learned counsel for the revenue, supported the case of the revenue and cited another decision of this court in the case of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1960] 39 ITR 751 (Cal), where it was held that interest paid by an assessee under Section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not interest paid in respect of any capital borrowed and was, therefore, not allowable under Section 10(2)(iii). It was further held in that case that the assessee did not incur the obligation to pay such statutory interest for the purpose of its business and the payment of such interest was in no way incidental to its business, and, therefore, the interest paid was not allowable under Section 10(2)(xv) or as a trading loss under Section 10(1) of the Act. The loss did not spring directly from the carrying on of the assessee's business and the liability was not incurred in the running of the business. The liability was imposed by the statute to which all assets were exposed, whether they carried on business or not.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnataka vs International Instruments (P) Ltd. on 14 September, 1983

5. The assessee's counsel has nothing much to say on this question, Apart from the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Oriental Carpet Manufacture (India) P. LTD. [1973] 90 ITR 373, relied upon by the Tribunal, the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta also have taken a similar view in Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 (Bom) and Balmer Lawrie &B Co Ltd. v. CIt [1960] 39 ITR 751 (Cal). There could, therefore, be not doubt, in view of the settled position in law, that the interest paid on account of delay in payment of tax cannot be regarded as having been incurred for business purposes. Question No. 3 must, therefor, e be answered against the assessee.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Smt. B. Seshamma vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 March, 1978

The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 751 relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee related to the question whether the interest paid on such underestimate was allowable expenditure. In that case, the assessee submitted its own estimate under Section 18A(6) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and paid a sum of Rs. 4,47,125 as advance tax. When the assessment for 1948-49 was made, tax paid by the assessee on its own estimate was less than 80 per cent. of the tax determined on such assessment and the assessee was charged with interest amounting to Rs. 92,301 under Section 18A(8) of the Act which the assessee paid in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1951-52. The assessee claimed that amount as an allowable deduction in arriving at its taxable profits for the assessment year 1951-52, It was held that the interest paid by the assessee was neither interest in respect of any capital borrowed coming under Section 10(2)(iii), nor was it incurred for the purpose of business nor the payment was incidental to the business within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xv). On the question whether it was allowable as a trading loss it was held (p. 752) :
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 15 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next