Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Dashmesh Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 March, 1980

Himson Textile Engineering Industries ... vs Cit on 22 January, 2004

In the aforesaid decision, the Calcutta High Court has also dealt with the contention based on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shriram Prayagdas & Mahadeo Prasad (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dashmesh Transport Co, (P) Ltd. (1974) 93 ITR 275 (P & H), while the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was distinguished by the Calcutta High Court, the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was dissented from and reference was made to the subsequent decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dashmesh Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) the Calcutta High Court then concluded that apart from the fact that the tax liability is not deductible where the assets and liabilities are taken into account for ascertaining the purchase consideration, the liabilities in effect reduce the purchase consideration. In other words, the liabilities form part of the purchase consideration.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hyderabad Race Club on 22 February, 2001

In support of its contention, it also relied upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dashmesh Transport Co. P, Ltd. v. CIT . But subsequently, in another decision, the very same High Court in the very same assessee's case held that in the earlier case the court has not expressed any opinion in the judgment as to whether the alleged expenditure was a capital expenditure or a business expenditure. The judgment, therefore, cannot operate as res judicata when shelter was taken under the above judgment in subsequent proceedings. In the light of the said observations of the very same High Court and also taking a different view under almost identical circumstances in the very same assessee's case, it shows that the view taken by the Tribunal is not just and proper. Apart from that in the subsequent decision, it was held that if it is a liability of the predecessor, the said expenditure would become the capital expenditure of the assessee and hence is not allowable as a revenue deduction.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - B Nazki - Full Document

Vossolh Schwabe India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 August, 2015

contractual obligation to compensate for income-tax liability, then also same cannot be claimed as deduction, because it tantamounts to paying of sum on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits and gains of any business or profession as stipulated in section 40(a)(ii). Either the assessee pays the income-tax liability of the other person or pays by itself or compensates the same, will not make a difference as there cannot be distinction between such discharge of liability. That it cannot be held to be a allowable expenditure. So far as a decision of Dashmesh Transport Co P Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 93 ITR 275, it has been rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that this decision itself has been reviewed and has not been followed by the same High Court in the subsequent decision. Thus, the finding of the CIT(A) that income-tax liability cannot be 10 M/s Vossloh Schwabe India Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Puspa Perfumery Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 February, 1991

"A perusal of the judgment, annexure 'F', would show that, in the earlier case, the Tribunal did not express any opinion on the question whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company was capital expenditure or business expenditure and instead disallowed the deduction on the ground that the same was barred by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. On a reference, under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Division Bench of this court (Dashmesh Transport Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 275) reversed that finding of the Tribunal and there arose no occasion to express any view on the question of the nature of the expenditure. As no opinion has been expressed in the judgment as to whether the alleged expenditure was capital expenditure or a business expense, the judgment cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, operate as res judicata. Otherwise also, it is well settled that a finding on any matter in relation to a particular year of assessment does not operate as res judicata on a similar question in the subsequent assessment year."
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1