Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.46 seconds)
Peerless Securities Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 February, 2005 cites

Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980

7.9 The test of fixed and circulating capital also sometimes breaks down because there are many forms of expenditure which do not fall easily within these two categories. Moreover, there may be cases where expenditure, though referable to or in connection with fixed capital, is nevertheless, allowable as revenue expenditure, e.g., an expenditure for preserving and maintaining capital asset as pointed out in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra). Similarly, interest paid on the unpaid purchase price of a capital asset after the commencement of business is allowable as business expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 2 March, 2001

12. As regards Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Asstt. CIT (supra) mentioned in the top para 3.2 at p. 3 and pp. 70 to 76 of the assessee's paper book-the facts and the issues are entirely different. The IT Department wanted to attach the Stock Exchange ticket of a deceased trader, which has already vested in. the Stock Exchange. It was held that under the circumstances the ticket could not be attached. Secondly, and more importantly, the question answered, in this case as obiter, was whether Stock Exchange ticket is a property ? However, the question before us is quite different viz. whether expenses incurred for this purpose are revenue or capital in nature? Therefore, we are concerned with the question of nature of expenses, which has not been considered at all in this decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs Associated Cement Companies Ltd., ... on 4 May, 1988

7.32 The contention of the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) contending that the expenses in question have resulted in a benefit of enduring nature on capital field is found to be of no merit in the light of the facts and circumstances so found in the present case. The appointment as a dealer on the OTC Exchange of India cannot be equated to the Stock Exchange membership of the Calcutta Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and thus the contention advanced by the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) is misconceived or misplaced. As already observed above in foregoing paras that the appointment of assessee as a dealer on the OTC Exchange of India is in continuance of the assessee's business of share dealing and share brokerage carried on or set up by the assessee, the argument advanced by the learned CIT Departmental Representative that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present case deserve to be rejected. It is settled, as pointed out above that if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. The criteria of "once and for all" payment does not render the payments in question as of capital in nature as it is settled that the expression "once and for all" is used to denote an expenditure which is made once and for all for procuring an enduring benefit to business in capital field as distinguished from a recurring expenditure in the nature of operational expenses. In the present case, the expenditure has been incurred for running the business of share dealing and share brokerage as an integral part of the profit earning process or operation. What is material is the nature and substance of the payment. Here, the purport and object of becoming dealer on OTC Exchange of India is to facilitate the assessee's trading operations or to enable the assessee to carry on its business more efficiently, extensively and profitably in the background of rapidly changing and advancing economic realities of stock business.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 200 - M H Kania - Full Document

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 September, 2000

(ix) Payment made by the assessee, by whatever name called, for making use of network owned by Department of Telecommunications and for services utilised for purpose of business was considered as business expenditure. Similarly, the licence fee was held to be undisputedly paid for use of facilities provided by DOT, and the payment was found inextricably bound up with very business of assessee and directly related to actual utilisation of network facilities and, therefore, the same was held as an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act by the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'D' in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next