Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Hindusthan Motors Ltd. on 1 September, 1967

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. on 14 June, 1982

The Supreme Court was referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindusthan Motors [1968] 68 ITR 301, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT , referred to hereinbefore. But the Supreme Court distinguished these cases on the ground that these decisions were rendered on the facts of those cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. on 13 June, 1988

12. The controversy involved in this question is covered by the decision of this court in the case of the same assessee in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, where an identical question was considered and answered. The said decision is CIT v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. (1988] 170 ITR 431. Following the said decision, we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Panyam Cements And Mineral Industries ... vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 April, 1977

The Supreme Court considered that the identical question about the admissibility of the claim for expenditure as in the case before them arose in the case of CIT v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 301 (Cal), before the Calcutta High Court. It was argued on behalf of the department before the Supreme Court that in the case before the Calcutta High Court, the expenditure was incurred only to meet the expenses of the repair and no asset or advantage of enduring benefit accrued to the assessee. Dealing with this contention, the Supreme Court has observed as follows (p. 379):
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Dewan Sugar And General Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 September, 1969

8. There is much resemblance between the facts of the present case and the facts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd., [1968] 69 I.T.R. 301 (Cal.) But there is one important difference. In that case the assessee contributed money for repairing an existing road. In the present case the assessee's contribution was for the purpose of constructing roads for improving transport facilities.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Satyadev Chambers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 30 August, 1977

"The High Court rightly pointed out that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 301, on which the Appellate Tribunal relied, is clearly distinguishable on facts; that was a case where the expenditure incurred was for repair of an existing road which is different from the case where a new road is laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business."
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, New Delhi on 25 October, 1971

(26) The learned counsel for the assessed relied on Commissioner of Income-tax , West Bengal Vs Hindustan Motors Ltd., (-68 I.T.R. 301)(9). In that case the assessed-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing motor cars. Its factory was situated within the territorial limits of Kotrang Municipality, at a little distance away from the G.T. Road. An approach road connecting the factory with the G.T. Road which belonged to the Government had fallen into disrepair and thus caused difficulty to the assessed in transport of manufactured motor cars from the factory premises to the place of their sale. The Government undertook to repair the approach road on the assessed's contributing in advance a sum of Rs. 39,770.00 to meet the costs of the repair to be carried. The company paid the aforesaid sum to the Government and claimed the amount as expenditure, allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. 1922. The Income-tax officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the expenditure was of a capital nature. On appeal the Tribunal allowed the appeal stating that the expenditure was laid out for the purpose of facilitating carrying on of its business and that the enduring benefit went to the owner of the road and not to the assessed. On the asking of the department the question "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 39.770.00 was an allowable expense within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922" was referred to the High Court. While dealing with the question the High Court observed as follows at pages 308 and 309:- "THEmotive behind the payment was to do away with the inconvenience of a disrepair road, which should have been kept in repair by the Government as part of civilised administration. The money was spent not so much to bring about any asset or advantage of enduring benefit to itself but to run the business efficiently and conveniently, that is to say, by not being hampered by slow and possibly dangerous locomation of cars, produced in the factory, while moving on a disrepaired and ill-conditioned road. As a matter of business prudence, there was justification on the part of the assessed to expend this amount so as to induce the Government to repair the road, which it could not itself, repair, not being the owner of the road. The expenditure ought thus to be treated as wholly and exclusively spent for the assessed's business within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv)."
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona vs Khosla Plastics Pvt. Ltd on 28 September, 1981

21. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee was of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. . In that case the court held that the assessee was entitled to the higher rebate of 35% on its profit and gains attributable to the manufacture or production of even those automobile ancillaries which were utilised by it in cars manufactured by itself. The facts of that case were quite different from the facts here. "Automobile ancillaries" was one of the items in Sch. V, item No. 20, for the manufacture of which the benefit under s. 80E or s. 33 was available. The question there was whether the manufacture of the said automobile ancillaries would cease to be so, merely because they were used in the cars manufactured by the assessee itself. The court held in the negative. The said decision also can have no application to this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next