Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)
Nitin Madanlal Khandelwal,Akola vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 14 February, 2025
cites
Section 56 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal ... vs Rajendra Prasad Moody, Calcutta Etc on 4 October, 1978
I find that the substantial question of law in case of CIT vs
Rajendra Prasad Moody 1979 AIR 373, 1979 SCR (1)1047 was "whether on
the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, interest on money borrowed
for the investment in shares which had not yielded any dividend is admissible
under section 57(iii)?" The above case is not applicable in the case of the
appellant as the fact differs in this case as the appellant had invested in its
5
Shri Nitin Madanlal Khandelwal
ITA no.55/Nag./2024
own Private Limited Company and had not earned any income from the
profitable company on loans advanced but expenses were claimed in individual
Return.
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Padmavati Jaykrishna vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 3 December, 1973
5.14 I find that the expenditure as envisaged by section 57(iii) of the Act
should not be in the nature of capital or personal expenditure and it should
have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or
earning the income which is chargeable under the head "income from other
sources. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Padmavati Jaykrishna vs. CIT
(1981) 131 ITR 653 has held that in order to decide whether an expenditure is
a permissible deduction under section 57(iii), the nature of the expenditure
must be examined.
Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 January, 1993
Also the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Sons
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 113 Taxation 407, 201 ITR 464 has held that if the
dominate purpose for which the expenditure was incurred not to be earn the
income, the expenditure incurred in that behalf would fall outside the purview
of section 57(iii) of the Act.