Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd on 10 April, 1964

Can these expenses be said to be wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessed ? The import of the expression for the purpose of the business" was considered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-fax, Kerala v. Molayalam Plantation Ltd.. (1964) 53 I.T.R. 140 where it was observed at under : "THE expression "for the purpose of the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". Its range is wide: it may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title: it may also comprehend payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to commence or for the carrying on of a business; it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of the business. How ever wide the meaning of the expression may be, its limits are implicit in it. The purpose shall be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessed shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 356 - Full Document

Indian Steel And Wire Products Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 14 August, 1957

(4) The Calcutta High Court in Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, (1968) 69 I.T.R. 379(2) disallowed the contribution made by the assessed to the Indian National Congress for seeking the patronage of the political party in power for the preservation and furtherance of their business on the ground that it was not an expenditure solely or exclusively for earning the profits within the meaning of Section 10(2) (XV) of the Act. It was also observed that assuming that there was some connection between this kind of expenditure and the earning of profits, the con- nection was too remote.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay on 17 March, 1967

(6) According to the test laid down in Malayalam Plantations Ltd.'s(1) case (supra) it is necessary that the expenditure incurred should be turn the carrying on of the business and the assessed should incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business. The expenses incurred for the salary of Pujari for invoking the blessings of God and Goddesses for prosperity has no relationship to the carrying on of the business by the assessed. According to Mr. Kirpal because of the belief which the assessed had in respect of the super-natural blessings, it should be held that these expenses were incurred for running the business. It is neither possible nor desirable to delve in the sphere of super-naturalism. For some it is superstition only while for the others,, it is an essential part of life since the destinies of men are controlled by these forces. May be there are forces in heaven of which the men know not. Be that as it may, it is difficult to hold that the expenses in question were incurred for the carrying on the business of the assessed and that he incurred the same as a business man. Walchand's (3) case (supra) does not help the assessed. What has been held in that case is that once an expenditure falls within the category of an allowable expense the expenditure and its extent has to be Judged from the point of view of the business man and not the revenue. But in the instant case we are called upon to decide whether the expenditure in question is an allowable expense or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 303 - J C Shah - Full Document
1