Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Laxmichand Muchhal on 28 April, 1966

Chandmull Rajgarhia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 March, 1987

12. Besides the Gujarat High Court, some other High Courts have either followed that decision or decided the cases on the same lines. Those decisions are of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 271, the Madras High Court in CIT v. Karuppuswamy Nadar and Sons [1979] 120 ITR 140, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Lakhmichand Muchhal [1982] 134 ITR 234 and the Rajasthan High Court in Devichand Bastimal v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 166. For the same reasons, I am in respectful disagreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions.
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax M. P. vs Shivanarayan Harigopal. on 4 October, 1967

Learned counsel on either side did not suggest that the facts found in the present case were so different from those in Muchhals case that the referred question cannot be answered in the same way as in Muchhals case In our judgment, this reference is governed by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmichand Muchhal. We accordingly answer the referred question in the negative. The assessee shall have costs of this reference Counsels fee is fixed at Rs. 200.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dena Bank vs The Madhya Pradesh National Textiles ... on 16 December, 1981

16. A somewhat similar question also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in The Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P. v. Laxmichand Muchhal, Indore, 1966 MP LJ 720, in which it was held that if a Bank, after purchasing or discounting an instrument from a customer, credits the customer with the amount of the instrument and allows him to draw against the amount as credited before the bill or instrument is cleared, then the bank would be collecting the money not for the customer but chiefly for itself. From the above discussion, it is clear that if the bills and the relevant documents presented by its drawer are accepted by a banker with endorsement in its favour and the same are immediately discounted by the banker without waiting for its collection, by giving full credit for the entire amount of the document, so presented, the banker itself becomes a purchaser and the holder thereof for full value. But at page 226 in paragraph 421 itself in the Halsbury's Laws, it has been stated that whether the bill is taken from a customer for collection or as security or discounted for him, is a question of fact. We shall, therefore, advert to the evidence in this behalf.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Synthetics Limited on 4 November, 1985

9. As regards question No. (1), learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the present case, Sub-section (2B), as it stood before April 1, 1976, as per the Finance Act, 1983, would apply and according to that section, the assessee is not entitled for the expenditure incurred by lavish entertainment in posh hotels, etc., but they are entitled to only for those expenses which are reasonably incurred for its employees, guests, customers, etc., as is customary in the custom or usage of trade and, therefore, in the absence of any convincing evidence adduced by the assessee, the Tribunal was not justified in restricting the disallowance of such expenses to the extent of Rs. 10,000 as against Rs. 69,581 disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, in view of the decisions in CIT v. Lakhmichand Muchhal [1982] 134 ITR 234 (MP), CIT v. Navalmal Punamchand [1982] 135 ITR 801 (MP), CIT v. Shyam Lal Ramcharan [1984] 147 ITR 52 (MP), Central Paints Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 212 (MP) and CIT v. Lalu Bhai B. Patel & Co. [1983] 139 ITR 832 (MP), which are decisions of this court, such expenses have been treated as business expenditure and not entertainment expenditure and, consequently, in our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bank Of Maharashtra vs Md. Khurshidul Hassan on 26 July, 2018

" A somewhat similar question also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in The Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P. v. Laxmichand Muchhal, Indore, 1966 MP LJ 720, in which it was held that if a Bank, after purchasing or discounting an instrument from a customer, credits the customer with the amount of the instrument and allows him to draw against the amount as credited before the bill or instrument is cleared, then the bank would be collecting the money not for the customer but chiefly for itself. From the above discussion, it is clear that if the bills and the relevant documents presented by its drawer are accepted by a banker with endorsement in its favour and the same are immediately discounted by the banker without waiting for its collection, by giving full credit for the entire amount of the document, so presented, the banker itself becomes a purchaser and the holder thereof for full value. But at page 226 in paragraph 421 itself in the Halsbury's Laws, it has been stated that whether the bill is taken from a customer for collection or as security or discounted for him, is a question of fact. We shall, therefore, advert to the evidence in this behalf."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next