Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 seconds)

Messrs. Calcutta Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 12 May, 1959

9. The general conspectus of the main plank of the learned Counsel's argument was that the amount received was deferred income as certain obligations were attached with such receipts. The treatment given to such receipt was in accordance with the fundamental accounting concept for matching the revenue of each year with the expenses incurred to earn such revenue. The entire amount received towards advance subscription cannot be debited to the P&L account as it tantamount to provision of agreed amenities and facilities towards which customer made the payment in the previous year. Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court rendered in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 1) (SC). In this case assessee bought lands and sold them in plots fit for building purposes undertaking to develop them by laying out roads, providing a drainage. system and installing lights, etc. When the plots were sold the purchaser paid only a portion of the purchase price and undertook to pay the balance in instalment. The assessee in its turn undertook to carry out the developments within six months but time was not of the essence of the contract. During the relevant accounting period assessee actually received in cash only a sum of Rs. 29.392/- towards sale price of lands, but in accordance with the mercantile system of accounts adopted by it. it credited in its accounts the sum of Rs. 43,692/- representing the full sale price of lands. At the same time it also debited an estimated sum of Rs. 24,809/- as expenditure for the developments it had undertaken to carry out. even though no part of that amount was actually spent. The department disallowed the expenditure. On appeal it was held that the undertaking to carry out the developments within six months from the dates of the deeds of sale was unconditional, the assessee binding itself absolutely to carry out the same. The undertaking imported a liability on the assessee which accrued on the dates of the deeds of sale, though that liability was to be discharged at a future date. It was thus an accrued liability and the estimated expenditure which would be incurred in discharging the same could be deducted from the profits and gains of the business, and the amount to be expended could be debited in accounts maintained in the mercantile system of accounting before it was actually disbursed. The difficulty in the estimation thereof did not convert the accrued liability into a conditional one: because it was always open to the Income-tax authorities concerned to arrive at a proper estimate thereof having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 404 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shankaranarayan Construction Co. on 17 March, 1991

No details were furnished by the assessee as to the expenditure actually incurred during the relevant period towards providing the customer facilities. Assessee is separately collecting amenity charges which were reflected as miscellaneous income. The resorts operational expenses are separately claimed by the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee strongly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Shankaranarayan Construction Co. 197 ITR 688 (Kar). In this case assessee was engaged in executing projects of a Power Corporation. Assessee received excess amounts over and above amounts due to it as per actual work done by it. Final adjustments were made at the end of the contract. Excess amount was to be adjusted in future years. The practice of Power Corporation was to make excess payments to the assessee. It also obtained large security deposits from assessee which were non-returnable until final bill was passed. On this factual backdrop Hon'ble High Court has held that the exeess amounts received were deposits or advances and not income liable to tax.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 15 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 January, 1993

14. Adverting to the precedents relied upon by the ld. D.R., we find that in the case of E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. CIT 258 ITR 404 (Mad), assessee purchased IDBI Bonds. It exercised option to receive discounted interest for entire period in the relevant accounting year. Hon'ble High Court has held that entire interest is chargeable to tax in the year under consideration.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 26 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954

15. The concept of deferred income is alien to Income-tax Act. Income on its coming into existence attracts tax. The obligation to use the income in a particular manner does not remove it from the category of income: this is even if the obligation is part of the original contract giving rise to the income. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.D. Sassoon & Company Ltd. v. CIT 26 ITR 27 (SC). It is amply clear that income that is received or deemed to be received in the previous year is exigible to tax. The computation of such income is to be made in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. There is absolutely nothing in the Act to permit the assessee to treat part of the income as deferred income and to offer it for taxation as per its own sweet will. We find absolutely no rationale for excluding 55% income. Even on facts assessee failed to satisfy that 55% receipt was to meet certain obligations and it is to be spread over in 100 years' time. This in our opinion is a subterfuge devised to hoodwink the Revenue. We have perused the reasonings adduced in the impugned order. In our opinion, CWT(A) took a correct view in the matter and his order calls for no interference on this count. Accordingly, we uphold the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 1764 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1