Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
7. We have carefully perused the order of the lower authorities and the documents placed before us, in the light of rival contentions. From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions of the assessee verbatim in its order and has given his findings in a small paragraph instead of adjudicating the issue independently. While adjudicating the appeal, the CIT(A) heavily relied upon the judgment of the Madras Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and after having a careful perusal of this judgment, we are of the view that this judgment was rendered on different facts and is not directly applicable to the facts of the present case and as such its reference to the present controversy by the CIT(A) is uncalled for. It is also a settled proposition of law that nature of documents should not only be examined on the basis of its title but the contents of the documents should be examined minutely in toto to draw an inference about the nature of document. One should not go with the title of the document as sometimes title of the document is illusory and deceptive and to understand the nature of the transaction, the document should be read in toto to know the intention of the parties. We therefore, are of the considered opinion that the documents should be read minutely to understand the real state of affairs. We, therefore, extract the relevant portion of the three impugned documents as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs I. A. E. C. (Pumps) Ltd. on 3 April, 1997
In case of CIT v. I.A.E.C. (Pumps).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Ganapathy Mills Company Limited on 16 February, 1999
12. Ground No. 2 relates to the delayed payment of provident fund. During the course of hearing, it was admitted by both the parties that the assessee has made payment of PF/EPF and ESI within the grace period which was disallowed by the AO. The CIT(A) following the decision of different Benches of the Tribunal and the decision of the Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Shri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) allowed the payment. Now the Revenue is before us. On perusal, we find that CIT(A) has rightly allowed payment which was made in grace period. We, therefore, uphold the order of CIT(A).
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,U.P., ... vs British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur on 3 February, 1987
In the case of CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. (supra), the apex Court has held that a fixed amount to be paid to the distributor for establishing the distributorship and for obtaining know-how of specific bading process is a revenue expenditure. According to this agreement, the assessee had agreed to pay the distributor 5 per cent of the selling price of its products produced by the process disclosed to it. But the instant case, the facts are different as lump sum amount was paid for acquiring to use the trade-mark for unlimited period.